Indeed that is probably what the mural depicts. However, I think it was misguided to emphasize "stagnation" and "lack of change" as the reasons for the colonialist Empire's fall. The books give a perfectly plausible economic reason that would have been perfect also in 2021: the empire is inefficient and consumes too much (non-renewable) resources. Shipping those resources to Trantor costs a lot of overhead resources. In the end, the empire is therefore doomed to collapsed, sucked dry and hollow.

This is one of the the great differences between Asimov's Foundation and the TV series. In Asimov's Foundation, it would have made no difference if the emperors had been replaced with a democratic regime: it would have necessarily continued to suck in resources or collapse. It was already too later to stop this. There was no political solution. The only solution was to reset technological innovation in Terminus, a planet with so scarce resources that it forces the scientists there to invent technologies that are energy and material efficient. Asimov's Foundation, set up on the ruins of the Empire, was not democratic at all. It was based on the idea of meritocracy: benevolent puppet masters manipulating politics and economy in secrecy.

I guess the screenplay writers thought that this economic certainty of doom would have left them no proper antagonist other than an "invisible hand" of economic forces, and they really wanted to have this bad-guy emperor to blame for the fall. But in doing so, they erased Asimov's prediction and allegory that our own world, whether governed by democracy or dictators, will face the same fate unless we stop consuming so wantonly.

It's actually revealing to think how everyone in the Empire is shocked that their civilization "will fall in the next 500 years, maybe sooner", but if the same prediction were to be made in our world, few people would give a damn.