The big question is whether Tomorrowland will/should be based in futurism or retro-futurism.
The World Future Society and WDI should get together regularly for brainstorming sessions.
However, if you browse through some of those, you realize that genuine futurist topics are often somewhat bland and complex, since they deal with various real-life current issues, problems, and challenges. There's not a lot of romanticism and "fun" involved.
The 1950s, however, were right smack dab in the middle of a watershed period in history when the public discourse was awash with discussion of a number of topics involving science and how it was related to the future - space exploration, rocketry, atomic chemistry & power, rapid changes in public transportation, and a myriad of other technological advances were sprouting up like so much grass after a rainstorm. Many of these topics lent themselves to romantic ideas, and the public eagerly ate it up. Over the next several decades, however, real life started setting in, and real-life issues began dulling the sparkle on these lofty dreams and flights of fancy (budget cuts at NASA, for example, ending the Apollo program and cutting back on further space exploration put a huge dent in the public interest; combined with the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal, it seriously tarnished the more utopian dreams that had been touted in the 1950s). The increasing fear and further study of atomic energy revealed more problems with it than the promises had led us to believe, and the oil shocks of the 1970s only added to the lessening of romanticism about travel and transportation.
All of these things had an effect on Tomorrowland, which is why its shining, optimistic vision of the future began looking dated in the 1980s and 1990s. The ideas were no longer fresh and exciting, but unfortunately, there wasn't a whole lot that had replaced it in the public mindset, other than post-apocalyptic disaster scenarios and chaotic cyberpunk ideas, neither of which would be considered appealing or romantic. In the meantime, any ideas that were considered intriguing and "fun" were usually coming from other Hollywood studios, whether they were space fantasy-related (Star Wars) or more closely related to Earth's future, if still highly fictional (Star Trek). The public latched onto both, but neither were connected with the original Tomorrowland concepts (and if they were, there were other issues related to copyright and so forth that got in the way), and were more insular within their fictional constructs than they were about Earth and its actual future.
At the same time, when it came to genuine cutting edge science, EPCOT usually got the lion's share of the best ideas coming out of WDI, not to mention funding dollars. So Disneyland's Tomorrowland continued to languish.
And so today, we still have a mishmash of thematic ideas and concepts, few of them related, few of them cohesive, and few of them educational or thought-provoking in any real sense. They're more about short-term fun and only thinly related to science.
Tomorrowland needs an overriding theme, so that all the attractions within it relate to that theme in some fashion. It should make science and the benefits of science a centerpiece.