I think perhaps you've misunderstood the article. If I understand it correctly, human centered design as it is currently employed is only concerned with enabling transactions, whether it is Amazon's 1-click purchase button, or Uber making it easy to get a ride without trying to find a taxi. Negative externalities like Amazon and Uber causing increased traffic and pollution when its customers use their services.

The article makes the argument that it is the anthropocentricity of human centered design that allows these companies to completely ignore the impacts on the environment and, in the long run, ironically, on the humans the design is supposed to focus on. I think it is probably an unnecessary part of the argument, as capitalism itself is quite good at incentivizing companies to ignore pesky negative externalities as long as they can get away with it.

Sorry, I don't understand your example. Actually, toilet paper does not improve things for humans, other than the act of using it for its purpose (which if you have a bidet, you don't need toilet paper). Toilet paper causes a great deal of environmental damage, from destroying Canadian forests [1] to, of course, climate change. [2]

1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/canada-boreal-...

2. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/toilet-paper-enviro...