Forgive the length of this post...I'll post a Cliff notes version for BillV.
David
It is an interesting question, but I suppose it depends upon what you believe the golden age designers stood for.
IMO it is a mistake to associate a political or social agenda with the designs or designers of that period. The Arts and Crafts Movement (which had an influence upon the direction of golf design) was part artistic movement part social movement, unfortunately the social movement (which promoted socialism) was its down fall. From its beginning many of the artists had difficulty with the political aspects of the movement, and many others practioners rejected its political overtones over time.... thankfully.
We are all richer with extravagant works like Greene and Greene's Gamble House, FL Wright's Fallingwater, Voysey's Broadleys, Lutyen's Deanery Garden, Mackintosh's Hill House, etc. Like wise we were richer for Lido (Darwin thought it superior to NGLA), unfortunately it did not survive.
No doubt Lido was a tight property, but so were Wannamoisett, Inverness, Shoreacres, Scioto, Bayside, Winged Foot and countless others designed by Ross, MacKenzie, Tillie, Emmet, etc..
Inhospitable? Perhaps it was a sandy swampy property by the sea....but after all the game was born by the sea, that is where the architectural prototypes were found. No doubt it was a mammoth task preparing the site for golf and in essence restoring the natural dunescape. But on the other hand I would prefer a seaside course built on artificial dunes to a seaside course built upon a mud flat...that doesn't sound too appealing. I certainly would not put Macdonald in the minimalist camp...IMO he would definitely ignore the lay of the land if the land was laying there like a mud flat. In fact I don't know too many so called golden agers who wouldn't have ignored the land in this case....architects like Raynor, Alison, Thompson, Thomas, Langford, Strong, MacKenzie, Ross etc. would have done something similar (or nothing at all).
The strength of these lay of the landers was not their complete refusal to move land, but their ability to recognize and utilize natural features, and to create man-made features that enhanced the natural. I agree it is unwise to ignore Nature (arrogant if you like)...but I've never considered Macdonald or Lido as examples of this problem. It seems to me he embraced Nature, and in this case re-establishing a natural environment (with the help of money and technology...IMO there is nothing inherently wrong/evil with money or technology).
I disagree with Pat, equating the NGLA to Lido from a construction view point. Macdonald himself wrote (as did Travis) about the construction of the NGLA (before, during and after) and unless you believe Macdonald is a liar, that golf course was definitely a lay of the land design, CB took great pains to utilize the natural feature of the site.
There were a number of courses built on difficult sites, all quite expensive--Pine Valley, Timber Point, Banff, Jasper, Yale, Oyster Harbors, Ponte Vedra, Indian Creek, Tokyo off the top of my head. Regarding the social and economic realities of the time, my read it was a very prosperous time, and I don't believe the architects of that era were all that focused on social issues. Robert Hunter, a socialist prior to getting into golf design, died an intelligent conservative afterward. Their focus IMO was upon their craft, both artistically and strategically.
Some of the positives of Lido: Growing grass upon sand was a problem--Pine Valley, NGLA and Lido were grass growing experiments that helped down the road and the suction dredge method developed at Lido was utilized at Timber Point, Sea Island, Colony and I believe Sharp Park (to name a few).