Ive already written a blog about environment strategy, and for some this is still valid, but since I have written it my opinion has changed.
Befor...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
the problem with the shared env approach is once you start using Dataverse as storage you end up with a huge amount of tables and possible security issues with regards to sensitive data in production which will be even more difficult to manage
Very true, and I would always scale out separate environments for large Dataverse projects. But in my experience the volume of solutions don't use Dataverse (your milage may vary). My version 1 was focused on Dataverse like you said and that is good for some, but I found its negatives out way the positives.
Quite interesting as you put it, "negatives out way the positives". Do you mind sharing experiences on that?
It's mainly around the management, as power play doesn't really act as one, with every envy self contained. Without share environments you end up with so many environments with one or two solutions in it. This is horrible to manage (access groups, pipelines, backups) and to report on (though Inventory in ppac is beginning to help). Plus environments are not free, they use Dataverse capacity.
On similar thought process wrote about automation ALM