Been thinking about this one for a few days, and have still nothing but a definite "Not Sure."
Technology has always affected building golf coures, more on the construction side. When big dozers came in, we (as far back as Ross) used them, because we could and they did give us capabilities to do something different besides the old enforced minimalism. Later, plastic pipe replaced more expensive and harder to install concrete, clay, etc. I believe the result was more drain pipe on golf courses because it was affordable. The list goes on.
I have alway sensed that the office tech, whether computers vs typewriters, or CAD vs pen and ink was just a different way to do the job, but we haven't really changed the nature of the plans we produce, save a bit more 3D images. And, what we save because something like grassing plans are easier to achieve in CAD (after more massive set up time for base sheets, etc.) we end up devoting to something else - whether the 3D images to "prove" our grading looks right, or something else. As I alluded in a different thread, for some reason, master plan reports keep getting bigger and bigger.
Some of that is computers and ability to stuff boilerplate in there for some inpressive documents (easier to customize, but of course, always the risk of leaving the word "Nebraska" in a report you are using as a base for a project in Georgia)
I believe there is more ability and hence (cannot prove this) more cut and paste of existing green designs into plans. In some cases, it makes sense. Back in the hand drawing days, we would measure existing greens that worked the way we liked (in things like how the edge rolled) but when every draftsman started every green from scratch, they hardly ever got the actually grades they way they worked, as they sought to put their own "flare" in the plans.
As Dick Nugent used to say, most of design style in the hand drawn days was really a function of "wrist radius." A small armed guy tended to have smaller scale features, and a long armed guy tended to draw long curves!
Of course, anyone starting today won't be able to make that comparison, since most will start in CAD and end there, or in 3D models as suggested. And, while I agree with TD about the field being the final test, in truth, golf architects have more freedom to deviate from plans now than in any time in my time in the biz. If it goes back the other way, to building to plan exactly without many field changes, then in the big picture, I can't see how 3D renderings (and 3D models are even better) could do anything but help an architect visualize and communicate their design to get it built better.