I would say there is also an important difference between a piece of architectural or interior design, and a set design.
Set design needs to tell, or at least support, a story. Characters with particular motivations and backgrounds built it, designed it, used it, forgot to clean it, threw up all over it after a heavy night… Etc.
If you meant this to be the slightly tasteless, over-the-top creation of a drug dealer, and you’ve added ‘lived in’ details like empty bottles, flip-flops, etc - then you are taking into account of a lot of the design considerations a set designer would be accounting for in their work. You are telling us something about characters in a story simply by showing us the environment in which they exist. In this case the mis-matched design aesthetic, the tacky yet expensive finishes, the cluttered layout, are all very much in keeping with the intended purpose, and arguably very successful, since that is how it is read by the people commenting in this thread.
If, on the other hand, this is a design for a space that someone might actually build, and demonstrates your ability to create aesthetically pleasing interiors, then I wouldn’t say it is as successful. ‘Aesthetically pleasing’ is of course very subjective, but it doesn’t mean that the current ‘in vogue’ style is the only option. A regency-era steam room can be aesthetically pleasing to the eye, as can (with difficulty) a brutalist, neo-industrial spa.
A well executed and ‘elegant’ design has balance, internal consistency, clear vision, and (hopefully) a unique or at least not totally derivative look. I personally don’t think this design has those things, but we can of course agree to disagree on that. 