I pick 1960 San Francisco, when it was the home of emerging 1960s culture and twenty year olds with unskilled 3/4 time jobs could buy a house and start a family. (That's the exact same house you need to make $550k to buy today)
I pick 1950s Bengala-Desh because you didn't have to risk your kids lives from flooding because of overpopulation and DDT was just ending the malaria problem (some came back after the ban).
Lots of 1950s third world countries are first world today, like Mexico or Korea. In that case, I'd pick today over 1950s.
There are lots of benefits to growth in per capita income. There are no benefits to growth in GDP from population increase while GDP per capita stagnates.
Would you rather live in 1950s SF or 2017 sf? Would you rather live in 1950s bengala desh or 2017 Bengala desh?
How about 1950s third word or 2017 third world?
Yes, there are costs to a growth centric economy. But there are also benefits. And apparently the benefits massively outweigh the costs.