It shouldn't- I'm not in favor of centralized planning nor technocratic dictatorship.
But I would ask, what is the goal of economy? For me, in the most basic terms, the search is for the most efficient manner of production, and the most transparent equity of access to the distribution of said production.
At the same time, these methods must align with ecological reality. The Jevons Paradox is what seals capitalism's fate IMO. The long-run trend, spanning the entire "neo-liberal era" (I'm aware of your disagreements on definition, and arguing that here is probably beside the point- simply using it as an easily referenced title) is that for every unit of efficiency gained, we use another 1.5 units of energy. While on it's face this seems absurd, anybody's newish Honda Civic makes the point quite well- a newer base model achieves maybe a few points better mpg, on average, than a 30 year old base model. The newer model has had three decades of being tinkered with by some of the finest engineers on the planet- the engine alone is a far more efficient fuel-sipper, without even considering advances to the transmission, materials, drag reduction etc. However, the newer Civic is longer, wider, and quite a bit heavier. Once a spare, utility-driven machine, even the base model is stocked with all sorts of energy-sapping shit, the half of it unrelated to the purpose of the machine in the first place.
Beyond reducing carbon emissions, a necessary condition to keep our planet habitable is to cut energy usage as a whole. Free energy from the sun is great, and clearly what we must seek (as well as other renewable, non-emitting sources) in the next half-century. Over the long haul, though, we have to reduce energy use as a whole if we want to avoid Earth becoming Venus II. Dyson thought it would be easier to build his spheres than achieve this goal, and maybe he was right (and certainly knew more than I.) The last figures I saw, two years ago I'd guess, predicted boiling hot surface temps by 2400. I really don't think most people are aware of this, but in order for the US to do it's part, we'd need a per household reduction in energy consumption of roughly 1000%. Can you imagine running your home now, or at any time in the near future, on 1/1000 your current energy demand?
So when I say, we need to run our economy in a scientific fashion, I mean that we need to solve those problems. We sure as shit are not gonna get 10-15 billion people onto Mars/Titan/Dyson Spheres within the next 100-150 years.