Did Boeing intentionally design a cheaper 777x because of FAA under sight?

Yes, this is probably a conspiracy and a pretty dumb one, but I am curious if there is a slight chance this may be real.

From what I understand, the FAA has for years encouraged manufacturers to take more responsibility for certifying their own work, a process known as "Organization Designation Authorization" (ODA), which allows Boeing employees to sign off on safety compliance in the FAA's name. This was happening during the 2000's and early 2010's.

The 737 max program was announced in mid-2011, and the 777x program in late 2013. These were launched during the reduced oversight, and the relatively friendly relationship between the FAA and Boeing.

It has basically been proven that the 737-max series did have many questionable decisions made relating to profits not safety, could that had happened to the 777x? Reports found that Boeing withheld critical information about the MCAS system FAA and airline pilots. The MCAS itself was implemented as a "band-aid" fix rather than a robust redesign, to handle the handling characteristics of larger engines on an older airframe.

Knowing what we do know about the 737 max failures, it could be possible that Boeing intentionally went past short-cuts to make a product that was cheap and quick, then work on safety overtime. 2013 Boeing would of seen the relatively relaxed safety environment, and thought "lets make an aircraft first, then fix the problems after." It is likely that if the two crashes in 2019 didn't occur, the 777x would of entered service with many potentially dangerous flaws.

I mean, it would be pretty easy to save money in a lot of places. I'm an engineering student, and I can so easily save lots of money by swapping out different parts, using cheaper materials, spending less time doing research and take shortcuts. If I can save money from a small $200 project, how much could Boeing save when you scale it up? Lets say I need to choose between a few different materials for a box that will have lots of water flowing through. I can choose a proper Acrylic material, which will have high durability, less upkeep and more scalable, but more money. Or I can choose a $5 PLA that will probably last 10 or so tests, but will quickly start having leakage soon after. Lets now say I was Boeing and choosing between two different materials. One is durable but expensive, and the other is cheap but weak. With reduced FAA oversight, no one is going to know which option I picl.

Boeing could of saved up to 10% by saving on material costs because no one was watching them, then going back to fix them later. No one was watching what Boeing were doing, no one cared and everyone assumed they would continue to be above safety standards. If this were the case, then that would basically mean this 7 year long delay is actually a good thing. It means Boeing now has to spend millions, maybe billions more to fix their shortcuts. Every company will attempt at saving costs when given the opportunity.

So thats basically it. This is my potentially crazy theory. Have a good day/night.