JK, perhaps the deciding point is the green fee amount. An ultra expensive public, like the CCFADs at Kohler or Pinehurst or EH (although the owner at EH expresses that he did not want it perceived as an ultra expensive) are ultra expensive for two reasons I can think of. One is that they cost a lot more to acquire a primo piece of land to build upon, thus requiring more green fee, and two, they are designed with more unique and complicated architecture, thus more maintenance expenses. So, they must charge more to be profitable. Let's face it, the formula of roughly $10 more green fee for every million spent above 2 million, with a base no matter what price of about $25-30 for any course below 2 million is still valid, I think. I don't see how they could have built EH for much less than 12-15 million with CH and maintenance and bungalows, etc.
But, your asking 'should the be designed differently'. No. The archie should design what the land permits, common golf sense suggests, and the owner envisions. If they want bells and whistles, then build them, and they will be required to charge green fees within reality of the expenses. I think that is why EH is $150, as has been explained by the owner himself in articles. No need to apologize for recovering his money investment.
But, if an ultra expensive public is built/designed like a low maintenance public, with no complexity, straight forward, on the cheap, and then charges more due to some prestige archie name or some other hoity toity notion, well the market will find that out and stay away accordingly after being taken to the cleaners once.