I tend to agree about the time thing, namely that people aren't given enough of it to sit down and take their time with design decisions. If you squint you can kind of see that "software architects" are a business's way of creating a "solution" to this problem, but with lackluster results.

That said, I've been at places where management did a pretty good job of making sure that there was enough time to do this kind of work with middling results. People have to enjoy the work or feel invested in a way that makes them care about "3 years from now", and sadly in a lot of places there's a lot of "whatever, it'll be fine for as long as I work here."

It seemed to me that in let's say 50% of cases, having the extra time didn't really matter. Assumptions about what was being built were proven incorrect not long after a design was laid down and work had begun, or particular engineering types would create increasingly complicated designs with their time rather than doing the hard work of distilling the problem, sometimes including $PET_TECHNOLOGY as part of their solution.

The "let's design something truly great" really has to be in a team's DNA in my experience or you wind up with a good design that isn't followed, one person who does all the work, a gold plated design, etc.