I really wish people explored such concepts more. There's gotta be a balance between "every unit/thing/room is a modular entity" and "the building is static, take it or leave it". If I had to guess, there seems to be significant inertia and friction in the whole process. You can't build something unless you have some money, and if it involves buying and/or demolishing existing structures, you need even deeper pockets, making it "sticky" (as it's a discontinuous function).
The economist in me in partially hopeful that there is a way to address such an inefficiency.
The French Ministry of the Economy and Finance building, which was built in the 80s, is very interesting in this regard in a way which is not to dissimilar to the modularity of office buildings pre-open plan. [0]
I had the chance of joining a tour there years ago. Everything is build on a grid of 90cm cube modules and most rooms are bounded by movable panels - some plain other made of glass - which can be moved to reconfigure the space. That’s supposed to offer some flexibility as to how the building works.
Of course there is! Vernacular architecture has been doing this for millenia, all the way to caves.
Take a plain partition wall. If you build it architecturally, it’ll be optimized. Likely out of metal/timber and sheetrock, or bricks. It mainly is what it is and needs full replacement by craftspeople for modifications.
Now take the same wall made vernacularly. Possibly made out of clay and straw, or stones, or timber. Might be two feet wide in certain places. It can be carved, reused, expanded by the user at will.
Efficiency and robustness are a necessary tradeoff. If you live in a cave you can carve out new rooms given a spoon and free time. But most of us would prefer the comforts of modern buildings.
The economist in me in partially hopeful that there is a way to address such an inefficiency.