Ask HN: To have (system) design sessions or not?

In my team, I suggest that before starting coding/implementing any middle-size/big feature (e.g., an HTTP endpoint that, supposedly, needs a new db table) the engineers involved (which usually involves all the backend engineers) should have a "design" session where:

- potential high-level solutions are discussed

- potential implementations are discussed (not low-level details, but at least the important/risky ones)

- and once a "final" decision is made, whoever is in charge of pushing the feature live to production can start with the implementation. The rest of the team can review the implmentation later on knowing that it should follow the final decision the team agreed on

The team doesn't like the approach that much because:

- it takes time ("Omg, yet another meeting?")

- "review of the design can be done at PR code review time"

- developers should have more freedom when it comes to designing systems ("we don't want to be just code monkeys that implement the design of others")

I disagree with these reasons (but nevertheless comply with what the majority says). Mainly: having design sessions takes time, yes, but it pays off (in my opinion we are actually saving "implementation/review" time). Second: PR reviews shouldn't be for discussing architectural/design decisions (by the time the author has submitted a PR, it's already too late to make any significant changes. And if any significant change needs to be made, then we are losing tons of time as stated before). Third: design sessions are for everyone to speak up and suggest potential solutions, so we are not just "code monkeys", we implement the designs we agree on.

I'm probably the second most senior engineer in the team but I'm not the "tech lead". I do feel certain kind of responsibility in suggesting improvements in the way we work, but ultimately I don't have such a strong voice in the team, and we just do what the majority decides. The engineer manager knows about it, and while they agree we want to improve the way we work, they suggest that it will take time until we reach that point.

Just wanted to know your opinion about it. I'm a very relaxed person: while I do like to make suggestions to improve things, I don't mind if my suggestions are not ultimately taken into account (I wonder, though, if I would end up burned out of this kind of situation if it keeps happening repeatedly)