D&B or D&D?!

I recall 15 years or so ago when first using design and build (D&B) as a means of procurement. The Employer's Requirements we wrote were worded in a way that gave the Contractor as much flexibility as we could for his design, so he could innovate but (learning the hard way) had to make sure we duly accommodated the operational costs to ensure the solution was based on whole life principles. So, 15 or so years later, how have we progressed these early thoughts? I actually think we have gone backwards. For me, D&B should really be called D&D, which is design and dump. I see a real mess these days (can anyone tell me where this advice is coming from?) in that a client engages his design team who take the design so far then say you pick this up Mr Contractor, finish it off, making sure it all meets some really high level performance specification such as "I want a building that is just what my business needs" and if there are any errors in the original design then that is your problem. For good measure I'll dump these designers on you too. How is this D&B? How is it innovative? Just who is benefitting from this 'modern day' approach? Rob