there are people who tend to refer to certain furniture or buildings or household objects as "design-oriented" as if to emphasize that these furniture, buildings or household objects have aesthetic characteristics that make them "modern". modernity and design are not synonymous.
illustration: luis echánove
everything around us has usually needed to be drawn, i.e. designed, prior to its production. from a pencil to a space rocket, it is necessary to design it beforehand.
design should not be understood as a purely aesthetic exercise. this would lead us to evaluate the results only from a subjective point of view. objects are designed to fulfill a purpose. if we add to this that they are at least aesthetically acceptable, we will be adding value to the piece. what makes a design achieve excellence is not only that it fulfills its purpose correctly, nor that it is "beautiful" or attractive to the majority, but a combination of both variables, plus other factors related to economic issues.
the reason for identifying the term "design" with "modern" could lie in the fact that excessive importance has been given to this phase of the process, when, although it is indeed relevant, it is not predominant over functionality or production cost.
Historically, the pieces whose design has proved to be the most enduring and have been designated as truly excellent, have often resulted in works that appear to have no design at all.
So we can safely say that nothing is "very designy" because everything is designy.