The following is just a rough quickie and is hard for me to write because I have studied this area a great deal. So beware: lots of what I would call generalizations here.:

First, I think it's important to understand that the specific Arts & Crafts movement at the time that you cite was definitely seen as an elitist, upper class "faggy" movement,  a group of dilettantes from the aristocracy with the time and money to do such things. There are lots of famous political cartoons from the time making fun of these people, with limp wrists included. Indeed, the English side of the movement could be seen as sort of the "latte liberals" of their day. While in certain ways were inspired by Marxism/socialism, it was in a very vague and general way and not a true understanding, and most contemporary Marxists would have seen them as part of the bourgeois enemy.

But that is neither here nor there concerning the effect of their ideas over time, which has been important in my opinion. For one very simplistic and over-generalizing example: by influencing someone like Frank Lloyd Wright, or other major architects and designers, their anti-cheap-mass-production ideas ended up seeping into Western culture at large.

This created a desire by the public for this taste. Capitalism, as it often does, ended up co-opting in so many ways, because people demanded better quality and better aesthetics.

Today many middle class or even working class people desire to own and appreciate a fine hand-crafted piece of furniture or a Stradivarius or Shaker box or whatever. But they can't afford the costs of the specialized labor that that would mean. So the industrial designers try to furnish an approximate for them, in mass produced form.

One of the most interesting things for cultural history that has happened in this vein in the last two decades can be put in two words: Martha Stewart. She really got it, that there was a need, she really did, what few others saw. Early on, she described it as having a "Fantin Latour moment," going through all this labor to enjoy an aesthetic pleasure. That is like the key to what the Arts & Crafts movement was about.  She delivered the meme to the masses like no one else did. She got people to put their own labor into it, and she got mass production to co-opt it too. Like her or not, Martha is a major major part of late 20th-century cultural history; I happen to think people haven't even started to figure out all of the ramifications.

But as to finding an answer for our current world in all of this: I don't think so. There's no there there. It's already been fully understood by the culture, been co-opted, assimilated in a multitude of ways. People's interest in it have already waxed and waned in several movements over and over in the 20th century. And that will continue to happen. Actually right now, one sees it most often when someone has become successful or has lived long enough. The go through the mass acquisition of junk stage, and then get rid of "all that stuff I don't need," and live more simply with their favorite things and favorite services. (An aside: I think the McManison problem is one related issue; I think the market for those where location is not prime will crash with the retirement/death of the baby boomers.)

P.S. After thought: William Morris was in love with an idyllic agrarian and Medieval past that existed only in pictures and literature. I think it was indeed a very elitist position and anti-socialist at its core, even though he wouldn't see it as such. That's because he presumed a small population. The whole of it is dilettantish, sort of like the whole "noble savage" meme. All of the later 19th/early 20th century movements that were inspired by him that were, no surprise, communes that went off to live by themselves, away from "the people."