My person vision is lots of tiny languages that work together in such a way that you don't have to get out of their sweet spot. Of course, I'm not sure if its possible to do this nicely.
Lisps are very good for producing DSLs; when you have macros you have very powerful control over the syntax and can therefore produce your own language within the language.
The Common Lisp LOOP macro is a great example of power of macros; though in that case it is debatable whether it was used for good or bad.
I'm curious what you mean by this. Is your definition of a DSL based on the language's syntax, or on the language's paradigm? Clojure's core.logic [1] provides logic programming, as apposed to functional programming, but maintains the syntax of a LISP.
(I work with embedded DSLs quite a lot, but in Scala, where infix and postfix operators are easy)
I'll have to try it out some day. Alas, one of too many that I have to try out some day.
I personally can't work deeply in more than about 4 languages at once. This might be my memory, my experience level, or it could be a human limit, like the short-term memory 7±2 limit.
Edit: RE "Not same level as SQL", I meant in standardization. People can learn about SQL in isolation, too.