Great topic. I'm surprised there are not more responses!
I don't think of any particular course, or sequence of holes. I think of individual holes. I don't think a hole is either strategic, with options, or a demand hole.
A strategic shot option needs some demand. Who would stay at the speed limit if they weren't at least a bit concerned about the possibility of a ticket?
If a hole has two basic options (I leave it to the golfer to provide innumerable sub-options, shading closer to hazard, shot pattern, etc.) then the options can be either approximately equal in penalty and reward, or there can be a superior option, albeit with enough risk to present a mild dilemma to the golfer, no?
The superior option, if it exists, should have more demand, i.e., a smaller target or more hazards. The key is to generally (no formula here) try to match penalty with reward. Too strong, and the temptation is gone, unless at a critical point in the match.
The secondary option, usually something like laying up short of, or giving wide saftety to, bunkers to take them out of play, but resulting in a longer shot from a more difficult angle or lie, etc. should be easy to play from the tee. The strategic theory is that if a golfer takes himself out of a good chance at birdie by playing the easy, yet longer way, there is no need to punish him further.
On holes where two approximately equal options exist, the golfer is left to his own devices of shot pattern, game strength, etc. to determine his strategy.
A third option is where there is a variable preferred strategy, based on daily conditions, like wind and pin postion. Different landing areas may have relatively equal punishment and challenge, and the golfer simply needs to recognize which conditions exist that make one more favorable that day. The amount of demand here can be whatever the architect wants.
The theory extends to approach shots, even though they are, almost by definition, more focused on accuracy. However, if one side of the green is well guarded, and the other not, the golfer can decide just how close to aim at the pin, under the conditions. The beauty of these shots is that your game, wind, moisture, etc. always provide a sliding scale of options, rather than the cut and dried options created by hazards.
Golf courses can have all. If a course had all Leven holes, rewarding a carry risk, the long player would surely win most matches. Mixing holes that favor certain shot patterns, accuracy, etc. equalize different players to a certain extent, allowing all golfers to compete.
A balanced course should have several "demand" ashots, but I think they should be limited to about two tee shots, one or two par 5 second shots, and three/four approaches per round.
IMHO, I try to design them where all factors help in success. As one prominent golfer I know once said, "Let's see, wind blowing right, fairway angled right, ground slopes right. Partner, theres smarter guys than me, but dammit, I think I'll hit a fade!" Certainly, a demand shot is easier, when it is, well, easier!
Located correctly, they can challenge the great player, while perhaps helping the average one. Good places are long par 3's, where the tees can be moved appropriately, and long par 4's, where we presume the average player is approaching on his third - with a wedge. Of course, the short approaches anticipated by par 5 and short par 4 holes are also good.