When individuals are given rights in air, land, and water, tort liability protects and balances those rights. When air, land, and water are considered "public" resources (i.e., owned by noone and everyone), waste and spoilage is the inevitable result.In a society which honors and protects rights in property, mutually antagonistic and/or cooperative exercise of those rights strikes a balance of (guess what?) "sustainable development."
Doubtless, people occupy space, consume resources, and generate pollution. Thus, one threat to "sustainable development" in the United States is the government's importation of large numbers of people (literally millions) and its coercion of non-discrimination and association towards immigrants by native property owners.
Yes, and as you point out subsequently, laws regulate what can and can't be done with land and resources. The problem with the socialist economies above was that they were entirely focused on growing the economy with little thought for efficient use of resources or for environmental degradation. And that's exactly how the free-market U.S. grew its economy so rapidly in the 1850-1950 century, though the growth of the U.S. economy wasn't controlled by a central authority. It took events like the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland catching fire to raise consciousness in the U.S. that economic growth without concern for the environment leads to environmental damage.
One of the major differences now is that efficiency = greater profit. If individuals do not garner greater profit and then improved standard-of-living by practicing efficient production methods, then they have no incentive to practice them.