Design, according to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary can be defined:
1. To draw preliminary outline or main features of; to sketch for a pattern or model; to delineate; to trace out; to draw.
2. To mark out and exhibit; to designate; to indicate; to show; to point out; to appoint.
3. To create or produce, as a work of art; to form a plan or scheme of; to form in idea; to invent; to project; to lay out in the mind; as, a [person] designs an essay, a poem, a statue, or a cathedral.
In both the most broad and the most specific terms, I think it is fair to say that the problems we face today as a planet are problems of design.1 I would argue 1) that short sighted design of the past has created our present catastrophe, and 2) that only in radically readdressing the design of our design—the reasons and goals for designing anything in the first place—can we survive as a species.2
The danger in not looking past the apparent logic or ubiquity of poor design choices has given us world hunger, mass genocide, extinctions, and a chain of climate events that could potentially turn off all the life enabling function of our planet. As one of many hundreds of initiatives to counteract these and other problems, Valerie Casey (designer, CCA professor) gives us:

a global coalition of designers, educators, researchers, engineers, and corporate leaders, working together to create positive environmental and social impact.
Designers (like myself) have a way of feeling guilty about manipulating the public3 into buying goods4 or services5 for the benefit of a corporation,6 and profiting on the work in the process. (funny, that.)
The Designers Accord works to help the ills of our planet, and ease the guilt of it’s designers: a win-win proposition, in both the most broad and the most specific terms.
1 To be more accurate, we could push further to say that our problems of design are really problems of outlook / mind-set, and that those problems are really ones of philosophy and ethics, and further say that those are often problems of perception and relational psychology, or still further suppose that they are all problematic side effects of our planetary evolution. The argument of such esoteric notions becomes ever murkier the deeper you reach, but i would say that going at least to the level of philosophy and ethics, we’re still talking about design, if only in a different way than we tend to think of that word. Solving any problem, or organizing any set of thoughts could be said to be designing.
2 The merits of saving our species are greatly debatable, but I’d say we should at least give it a shot.
3 Manipulation largely means of cutting down trees, applying energy to process those trees into paper, as well as to process various compounds into ink, and printing advertisements that are often not recycled (itself a non-resource efficient process), advertisements that are generally unsafe to put in the ground or the water3a (even though we do).
3a Unsafe because they end up In either land fills or water fills, as a result either of littering or sloppy distribution, and are produced with unruly or toxic chemicals in the paper and ink both.
4 Products which themselves end up in the ground or the water.
5 Services which are often superfluous, or at least questionable.
6 Corporations which generally (as taken in the long view) are unhealthy for the economy, for their communities, for their employees, or for the environment.