Isn't this the canonical historical justification for colonialism?

That colonialist barons are helping the local population by improving infrastructure for them? (While massively enriching themselves)

I don't think that really worked out well. The exploited wealth (both from resources and labour) arguably contributed to our current position, where unlimited greed at others' expense and total exploitation and destruction of the planet's resources is seen as noble.

Continuing this theme with modern-day Western corporations seeking further profit extraction is a tragedy.

I'm more inclined to think of reducing trade barriers for such nations, of enforcing strict ethic rules for multi-national corporations and foreign nation-state actors.

Yes; going there and building this new infrastructure is counterproductive. It creates dependencies and introduces moral hazards. That's not the way to do it.

The emphasis here is on help building the infrastructure, be it with knowledge, resources or context. Not to force progress, but to support it. Not to maintain strongholds on existing technologies using copyright and patents, but instead share knowledge and make it available.

So you would rather that industrialized countries did nothing and just watched everyone else suffer?

If only industrialized countries did nothing - it would be a miracle for the developing countries!

Instead, industrialized countries push for their own agendas, plunder them for their resources, install their lackeys into power, play "divide and conquer" games with local populations, force them into unfavorable for the country deals, impose penalties and embargos whenever the developing country doesn't cave in to their demands, and so on...

I actually tend to agree on this part. Commercial colonialism is a real problem and we should force companies operating in developing countries to comply with strict ethical rules. Or else make operating there unprofitable.