Saying that "because something will eventually break it is a waste" ignores all the value it has while not broken

Oo hold up. I'm not ignoring value.

Your distinction between consumer and professional grade is good. A similar example would be chemical supplies — they have degrees of purity for different purposes.

If you create civilian-grade equipment for the military, you will create problems due to your lack of effort to create a better product. This is bad design.

If a greedy person designs a product that is 25% less durable than he otherwise could, in order to same a small amount (that would be insignificant to the non-greedy), he would be making a faulty product. This is an example of planned obsolescence. He would profit further from the increased sales of his flimsy product (since it lasts ~33% less).

To say that the market regulates the existence of this flimsy product is correct but irrelevant. The influence of greed would show itself again and again and again.

Take the same example towards industry and imagine a 25% more wasteful industrial process — this waste is analogous to the flimsy product, and a result of bad design.

If you say I'm ignoring the value of the flimsy product, I'll acquiesce because that's not the point I care for. There is no value to ignore in the industrial process. The waste is caused by bad design — there isn't even a market regulator for it, only legal regulation.