I'm gonna address this question within the context of capitalist first world society, not within hypothetical or actual socialist societies.

Basically, it's a bad idea to let yourself become dependent on things you don't need, might not always have, and wouldn't have if your society were behaving rationally.

For example, two things that cause a lot of environmental and other harms are cars and meat. Seriously addressing climate change would likely mean eliminating or drastically scaling back both. People will tell you "we need systemic change, so there's no point to me going car-free and vegan as an individual." And to an extent, that's true. But what's also true is that Americans are so addicted to cars and meat that any effort to make systemic change would be DOA due to massive public resistance. See anti-COVID-restriction protests for an example in miniature of how an addicted culture reacts when their treats are threatened. This presents serious problems for any effort to solve global problems. The most pessimistic reading is that first-worlders are so addicted to the spoils of colonialism (of which climate change is one form), that any systemic change cannot come from within the first world.

If you allow yourself to be addicted to things that you really shouldn't have, then it means that when conditions change and that consumption is threatened or no longer viable, you'll experience the pain of withdrawal. And that pain may push you in a reactionary direction. That's one argument for why you might consider living a more frugal (or environmentally frugal) lifestyle.