Certainly, hence why I said general case. I agree it's a design decision. I just think that a design that benefits a "small sub-set of problems" to the detriment of the others is objectively a poor one in a general purpose programming language. I frankly don't see how that is at all contentious, unless you're saying C++ isn't a general purpose programming language
C/C++/C# are all "general purpose" languages (which is pretty meaningless; it just means they're Turing complete and are not DSLs...), but you'd typically call the former two "systems programming" languages, and the latter an "application programming" language, as those are the general domains that they're typically best at / used for.
e.g. Python is also a "general purpose" language, but is often called a "scripting language", because it's often used to write small "scripts" that extend the behaviour of a host program.
If you're a systems programmer, then the lack of simple manual resource management in C# turns out to be a "a design that benefits a "small sub-set of problems" to the detriment of the others"... So no, you can't objectively say that in the absolute.
Every sub-set of programming problems is small on a global scale, but on a local scale the size depends on who you are and what your job is.
Given the original topic of this thread (and the additional context of being on a game-dev site), it's clear we're discussing the (globally small) set of problems where specific manual resource management methods (and other options that you have in C++) can be more efficient than C#'s one-size-fits-all alternatives (such as game engines) -- and then also every other set where this isn't the case (such as corporate GUIs).