Perhaps it’s a matter of semantics, but “planning” is not the problem. We all engage in a form of planning in an ordered society. The issue is the GOAL.
If the goal is a centralized tightly controlled society, the actions (derived from plans) are going to be directed toward fulfilling that goal.
“Centralized planning” by a governmental entity is indeed the mechanism (tool) used to accomplish the goal of establishing a centralized control over segments of a society and therefore is undesirable to most of us.
If the goal, on the other hand, is to preserve individual sovereignty/liberty and to protect that liberty from an ever encroaching attempt to deprive us of that liberty, then our actions (derived from our plans to accomplish our goal) are geared toward achieving that goal.
In other words, plans simply enable us to achieve our goals. They can be admirable (example: goal is to put a man on the moon, or build a network of interstate highways, all the planning involved in achieving those goals were necessary or at least logical and rational assuming the people agreed with the goals).
Planning is indeed problematic but only when the actions outlined in the plans are geared to accomplish an undesirable or otherwise faulty goal. Seems to me the objective would be to reject the goal, letting the plans tied to that goal fade away for lack of support.
At least that’s the way I see it.
In other words, plans simply enable us to achieve our goals.
The question is a matter of who “us” is. If the planning is done by a small group of elites or even a majority of a given population, and results in forced behaviour changes for the minority, it’s tyranny.