I believe that the appearance of good, practical deconvolution/lense correction could alter the lens design process. Instead of optimizing for (among other things) "minimum PSF", they could optimize for "minimum PSF after software correction".
Perhaps novel lens arrangements can lead to PSFs that are not pleasing in themselves, but that are relatively easily corrected (e.g. no deep spectral zeros).
For this to really fly, you need a good sensor that "oversamples" the spatial information and that provides sufficient SNR.
The design point for lenses have been shifting for some time now. Deconvolution is not usually part of the chain yet  except for a few special applications. For example, there are bar- and QR-code scanners based on cubic lenses (where the surfaces follows a x^3 form), which makes a really blurred image that should make any photographer run away screaming. However, this particular form happens to make the PSF independent of distance.
You can afford to put in deconvolution if 1) the end result does not need a lot of resolution, 2) you can avoid a mechanical focus system.
Currently, the industry trend goes towards correcting distortion in software. There are several fixed-lens cameras out there where the corners are outside the image circle at the wide end if left without correcting for barrel distortion. Any RAW-converter really needs to implement this.
That buys you a lot of latitude in the optical design. This can be traded for less weight, a larger zoom factor, better correction of other aberrations, improved rendering of details or a mix of these. As always, the typical choice is "reduced manufacturing cost" ;-)
One thing that is really hard to design around: even with the best coating, you have a substantial loss of light between air-glass surfaces (surfaces within groups are much better but still have the same issue). Some of that light still hits the sensor, usually in places where you really do not want it.
You really cannot build a big multi-group lens where glare will not affect deep shadows. A single element can do that. An sufficiently simple large-format lens can do that on a technical camera. Maybe that kind of design will be common again if we can get that mirror out of the way.
Esben H-R Myosotis
 In a useless technical sense, sharpening is a form of deconvolution. It can be regarded is a way to compensate for, say, an$ anti-aliasing filter, so I guess it has been there from the first digital photos.