Thomas:
This is one of the aspects of design where architects are very different from one another. Some just don't care about the backdrops at all, it's only the golf holes that matter. Some care more about the backdrops than the golf ... or at least their clients do! Getting both right is obviously much harder.
None of the early books on golf architecture [MacKenzie, Thomas, Colt, Simpson] said much of anything about the backdrops of the holes. Nevertheless, looking at MacKenzie's courses, it's obvious he cared more than most. It can't be an accident that the first tee shot at Pasatiempo lined up right at the end of the Monterey Peninsula, or that the 13th at New South Wales plays toward the far point of Botany Bay. Once I noticed those, I started thinking about it more in my own work.
To be fair, sometimes we can't tell how much an architect focused on backdrops, because the backdrops have changed so much in 100 years because of tree growth, tree death, or subsequent construction. I've seen a couple of awkward golf holes over the years that I didn't understand until I saw a picture of the original hole with a mighty elm tree [now long gone] as its principal feature.
Sometimes getting the backdrop right is a matter of elevation. Raising the tee [or raising the green on a pedestal] can hide something you don't want to see behind it, or make something in the distance appear larger, if you put it right on the horizon. These are things that you are more likely to focus on the more time you spend on site.
One tip I have heard regarding housing development courses is to try like hell not to let them put a house right behind a green, strictly for visual purposes.