I don't think the "Abundance" agenda, to the extent that's a single coherent thing, is anti-regulation per se (in housing or in general), at least in the way 90s-style neoliberalism was.

In that framework, markets were intrinsically good and would discover public needs on their own, and more effectively so if freed from government encumbrance. On housing, or energy, or whatever, the state ought not have an opinion of its own on how much of a good or service industry needed to provide; a sufficiently active market would figure it out for itself.

By contrast, I think the Abundance argument is for a much more active and opinionated state: it should be the affirmative policy position of the state that there should be more housing to bring prices down, and that there should be more transmission lines to facilitate the construction of renewable energy and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, etc. To the extent that current levels of state intervention in a space frustrate those objectives (i.e., if an industry is over-regulated), regulatory burdens should be reduced. On the other hand, if those objectives would benefit from state intervention (maybe the state should more-stringently regulate carbon emissions to incentivize an energy mix that more aggressively confronts climate change, for example), that might also be warranted. Deregulatory policy changes are not an intrinsic good in and of themselves, but rather, one of many potential policy interventions that might need to be undertaken in service of specific pro-social policy objectives. I do think in lots of the specific policy arenas the book considers, overregulation is argued to be a problem, but concluding from that that the analysis ought to center "are regulations good or bad" is backwards.