An interesting choice of title - I am not sure why using a shallow DOF would make you 'lazy'. You still have to think about composition and the background colours, even when unrecognisably blurred, still have to match with the mood and the subject.
Irrespective of DOF, lousy composition negates almost anything else you are trying to do.
Shallow DOF has its uses but they are far fewer than its proponents think.
If one looks at the vast bulk of commercial images, a moderate to deep DOF is typical.
Shallow DOF is a cliche beaten to death by relative newbies (new in the last five years) as a signifier of expertise. IMO the only thing it signifies these days is that the user believes it adds artistry automatically and that they bought a fast lens.
Really depends on what the subject, the environment, and the meaning of the photo dictates (unless you're following a commission and you'll do whatever asked to do). What's the relationship between the subject(s) and the environment? That often dictates which DoF will work better - there are some degrees between "everything sharp" and "everything totally out of focus". Sometimes, discernible shapes but blurred may work better.
Anyway, I usually don't like extremes - especially when they require a great deal of processing - because they become soon preposterous and tiring - often looks to me like a modern kind of Pictorialism, I don't like both photographers.