I have to disagree...
As an engineer, I spent decades trying to figure out exactly why everythng fro gadgets to building were 'designed' but failed to actually perform their functions efficiently or often at all.
Then I discovered that design degree programs, like architecture, are basically visual arts degrees with almost no attention paid to function or even usability.
If designers learn as much about how business information and materials flow as they do about engineering function, maintenance and human interfaces now, then 'designed' business will undoubtedly be badly designed, inflexible and monitor the wrong performance, efficiency and cost-benefit ratios as most businesses currently do.
Modern products are designed to be hard or impossible to maintain or modify, difficult for people to intuitively understand (are computer icons and sign icons actually intuitive? No. Until someone is taught what they mean, they have less chance of guessing the meaning of an icon than they do a written word. They're useful, but intuitive no.
Designers routinely come up with product and building designs which are overly complex, difficult or impossible to maintain, impossible to alter easily to adapt to changed functions, and often with critical components which are prone to failure, or unnessarily complex or limited in their assembly. Most modern products being manufactured by the millions have single point failure problems common to entire product lines, ensuring that broken machines are useless for replacement parts, because all broken machines ail in the same places.
Procucts are designed to such tight engineering tolerences when they actually are engineered, that even relatively simple devices use multiple slightly varying fasteners rather than standardizing on a small number, which would be correctly engineered for some parts and over engineered for others, but which would greatly increase maintainability and repair.
Almost no products are designed with any thought to their entire life-cycle, especially their end-of-life recycling capabilities.
Until designers are required to pay attention to the practical aspects of their designs (i.e. first, a product must perform it's function reliably and properly,) we will be continually facing designed products which are designed to appeal to the purchaser, rather than perform any useful function.
Since marketers have discovered that people will buy total junk, and then when it fails to function, simply discard it rather than complain and return the item, the market is flooded with products which work barely, or not at all, but which are profitable because people continue to buy them despite the product's major limitations.
One problem obvious with company design for decades is that things like 'environmental quality,' 'worker quality of life,' and other 'intangibles' don't exist at all within the accounting systems. This has permitted the old business model of 'dump as much of our waste processing and negative social effects upon the greater society to avoid having to include them in the cost of the product.'
In turn, this has permitted companies to remain cost-competative against processes which were far more efficient, simply because they failed to be required to pay their actual costs. Most electrical power generation and much manufacturing still falls into this category. Capitalism run rampant routinely profits by refusing to pay their actual costs and instead dumping those costs onto the general society.
I'm all for designing rather than just letting things happen, but design without attention the function first is no better than just letting things happen as they will, and usually worse.