What does that mean exactly? How is the economy to be structured to meet human needs according to Degrowth and who gets to define what those needs are?
The Degrowth movement - and I'm merely paraphrasing from the Wikipedia article here - rejects the idea of economic growth. Without economic growth either the number of human beings has to remain stagnant (at best; more likely that number would have to be reduced to make such a system sustainable) or the overall standard of living would have to be lowered.
Merely redistributing wealth doesn't cut it either, because without growth there can be no further creation of wealth. Hence, such a redistribution would be a one-off event and at least in the long run most people would still be worse off than with economic growth.
The fallacy of Degrowth and similar Malthusian ideas (such as the Club of Rome's similarly named "Limits to Growth") is to assume that growth is a zero-sum game, in which inevitable someone - or society (or the environment) - has to lose for somebody else to win.
While thermodynamically the resources on planet Earth - and ultimately the universe - of course are finite, for all pragmatic intents and purposes they are not.
Given continued technological progress and ensuing paradigm shifts, it is entirely possible to sustainably live on this planet under the premise of both economic and population growth as history since the time of Thomas Malthus himself has proven time and again.