We stopped doing that stuff because it was useless. We eliminated those practices and that profession because it was actively harmful to making good software. All those decision making methodologies consistently lead to worse technology choices than one dude actually trying to write some code with the thing for half an hour.
UML is mostly useless, but thinking ahead, even a bit, has value. I've seen stuff shipped in a sprint that was not used by any actual end users, only to be "redone" in the next sprint.
My experience is that shipping stuff that doesn't get used by any actual end users is more often caused by thinking ahead too much than by thinking ahead too little.
I've actually seen it both ways: whole features (or even products) that were too early. But on the implementation level, I've seen someone pick the wrong thing (library, database, whatever) "because it was simple", only to have it be thrown out before getting any real usage.
I agree that outcome is worse. However, both extremes are bad. The optimal approach would be to do a little bit more work upfront, pick a "better" thing (where "better" is at least more than the next sprint or 3!), and use that.
