Almost nothing on the internet is "designed" for iPhones, yet nobody's complaining that Safari exists .... just like with Safari the onus is in part on the vendor to make their version suit the platform, and in part on developers and companies to fully tailor their offerings to that platform if they want.
The only difference is you're allowed to see for yourself and decide for yourself if it works well enough - if it's not in Flash anyway. Simply dismissing everything on the grounds that some things won't work is silly.
Look: Safari optimization is optional. All unoptimized webpages work. You might have to scroll a bit more than is comfortable, but in general everything works just fine.
Comparing that situation to Flash seems odd.
(If you prefer features to execution as your comment seems to suggest don’t ever – ever – buy any Apple products. Apple doesn’t think like you do.)
The only thing that seems odd is you justify a browser for the same reason you dismiss a plugin - there will be cases where Flash works fine or well enough so by your logic there should be a FlashPlayer, but there will be cases where it won't so then there shouldn't be a browser. Adobe themselves could largely ensure most Flash works just by catering specifically to the iPhone environment and automatically bridging the interface differences, as Apple did with Safari.
And it doesn't necessarily have to be a browser. There are apps that sell well and there are apps that don't, so should they just close the app store? Of course not.
