But you're contrasting chaotic use of many different colors with neutrality, and arguing for environments with very little color rather than well-coordinated color; you argued above that color was just one element along with size, shape, texture etc., as if these qualities were mutually exclusive and design should only emphasize one at any given time.
Obviously it depends.
A room always full of people might not need much decoration.
In a private office, you might want to hang a colorful painting and have some colorful knick-knacks, or a colorful sofa.
You figure out the right amount of color accents for you. But without overwhelming the senses by painting the whole room bright orange, you know?
Sure, but my original comment was:
> Modern taste is more about more neutral-colored foundations with color accents.
Yes, there's no such thing as "objectively correct" when it comes to design. But it's where Western society currently is in terms of the design of public spaces including offices, how your realtor will advise you to redecorate when putting your home for sale, etc. And there are principles of modern design that, while not judgeable as correct/incorrect, are widely accepted as established.
So that's great you like to be bombarded with color, but I'm talking about an explanation for where society has been and how it's evolved with regard to color.
Well yes, in practice color often is chaotic. Nobody is color-coordinating the cars in the road, or the houses on a street, or the signs and advertisements and billboards. It's a free-for-all that turns into garish noise.
And more neutral environments with accent colors makes sense because the main accent is always people and their clothing. Your patterned red dress won't clash with a neutral background. It will likely clash with a patterned orange wall. A more neutral environment allowed for lots of colored accents to exist without competing or clashing with them.