Not really... What I see in practice is that Python's shortfalls are being covered by throwing more hardware at it. (Beside of the more efficient, but also more complex: rewriting in C).
There are all kinds of micro-optimizations, as in: one has to know which Pandas operations are going to be more expensive than others, and organize the code accordingly, but these things often teach programmers the wrong ideas. It's not uncommon in Python world that a superior solution (from algorithmic perspective, i.e. the one that should use less time or space) is in practice inferior to a solution that's implemented in C. And so, writing more efficient Python code comes down to knowing which functions are faster or cheaper in some other way, but it doesn't generalize and doesn't transfer to other languages.
What usually happens in situation like this is that the developers of the language (or a product, a framework etc. that suffers a similar fate) start optimizing the bad solutions (because they are the go-to tool for their users) instead of actually improving the language (the product, the framework etc.) To give some examples of this happening in Python: there's a lot of work dedicated to the performance of lists and dicts. But, if anyone really wanted performance, they'd have to look for more specialized collections, rather than optimizing very generic ones.