In the context of finding conditions suitable for trying new design ideas, the dominant design frameworks were studied and certain limitations were highlighted in the process. Particularly, the authors hypothesize that the ideological preference and hidden biases of the designer significantly affect the final design solution. To test this hypothesis, authors conducted a study with students from design schools. In the two-phase study, the participants were firstly asked certain questions to understand their preferences and ideologies. The preferences of participants were captured as tags (such as feminism, community, technology, and career focus). In the second phase, participants were given an open-ended case study and were asked to design a solution, following Design Thinking framework. The problem statement was consciously kept ambiguous. The solutions proposed by the participants were also qualitatively categorized. These categories were participant-wise compared against the categories from the first exercise. It was found that the approach of the design output in the second phase had high correlation with the preferences exhibited in the first phase. These findings strengthen authors’ hypothesis about designer’s biases. It is noted that the dominant design frameworks, such as Design Thinking and Double Diamond model, do not take into account such biases. In this context, it is proposed that the design framework should distinguish between the designer and the entity initiating the design process (such as a company, NGO, or state). The selection of designer by this entity should form the first step of the design process. Selection of a designer with the desired ideologies/biases will significantly impact the final outcome. Formalizing this learning in the design framework is particularly important for an established entity, which is trying to incorporate new ideas (such as inclusivity and crosspollination) in the design solution.