The aesthetic isn't a limitation.
It very much is, if you stick to portraying a futuristic world in the terms of 1960s TV-making.
There are composers who compose new pieces in the styles of previous eras. Plenty of jazz groups (mine) play in by-gone styles (mainstream ca. 1955). I write new songs in the style of "standards" (like Gershwin, Ellington, etc.).
This production, yes, is like a KISS cover band . . . that writes new songs in the manner of KISS! And if you like classic KISS, that's a good thing.
The difference here being, of course, that Star Trek isn't and never was a period piece about a specific by-gone time. It's a sci-fi show that tries to show a future world.
To ignore shifting and changing design aesthetics when portraying futurity today isn't creative. It's simply sticking to what you know and refusing to accept change.
This production is good, and I like it. But it is not a sci-fi show that takes today into account to portray tomorrow. It's a nostalgic masturbation fantasy for us fans, a period-piece about how a particular creative team saw the future in the 1960s (and even they moved on and adjusted their creative futuristic vision by the time TMP and, later, TNG came around).