I think it’s on the opposite side of the spectrum from Clarke’s “Piranesi” — and I like Pratchett’s viewpoint more: Clarke’s magic is desired and unreachable for those who seek it, so it’s a character of its own; Pratchett’s Esk postulates that not using magic when it’s there in your hands can be more important than using it, and that’s goes further than just admitting of its agency, it adds a very important nuance: whose agency is more of the liability to the living.

More literally Pratchett’s ecology is delivered in passages about Borrowing and things’ names and minds (Granny’s goats, and rocks of the University), but magic is the ultimate example of goals and means being one thing.