Looking at this together with Luis' point, this is where I have struggled with the notion of defining design.
If action is the result of conscious choice, when does a choice become a design? Or is design a vision of a pathway to learning, on a topic, with proposed activities and resources to support that journey?
When I think of poorly designed sessions, course or even moocs, I have seen, it is from these that I have - ironically - learnt the most about 'teaching'. But those that don't work well aren't all failing in the same way. For some, it is this idea of being too scripted (especially when those designing and delivering are not one and the same) and don't allow for spontaneous change. Others change too readily and wander a great deal without arriving anywhere. Many appear to have no overarching vision.
Ultimately, for myself, I want a learning experience to do a little more than 'change my practice or understanding', I want an organised experience to do that but more quickly than if I had chosen to learn alone. I do want my thinking challenged. I do want guidance. I do want to stand on the shoulders of others. I don't want to walk the same long pathway as those before me, I want them to have stood on the other side of the valley, looked back, and discovered a more efficient pathway to get to the same place. Maybe that is what constitutes 'design' for me, not an accidental blundering through the bushes to the other side, but looking to help learners do it better than I did.
Can that notion of design be done in real-time? If the teacher is more experienced than myself, has spent more time steeped in the topic, yes. Maybe looking back through the eyes of new travellers sparks understanding in the moment for the teacher of a quicker, better path. Is this 'real-time' approach something that can be undertaken by someone not well versed in the topic? Can we use non-(subject) specialists for primary design but
do subject specialist have to be the re-designers?