It's evolving, and I'm using transducers more over time, but I still regularly am in situations where a simple map or mapv is all I need.

Lazy sequences can be a good fit for a lot of use cases. For example, I have some scenarios where I'm selecting from a web page DOM and most of the time I only want the first match but sometimes I want them all - laziness is great there. Or walking directories in a certain order, and the number of items they contains varies, so I don't know how many I'll need to walk but I know it's usually a small fraction of the total. Laziness is great there.

This can still work with transducers - you can either pass a lazy thing in as the coll to an eager transducing context (maybe with a "take n" along the way) or use the "sequence" transducing context which is lazy.

I tend to reach for transducers in places in my code where I'm combining multiple collection transformations, usually with literal map/filter/take/whatever right there in the code. Easy wins.

Recently I've started building more functions that return either transducers or eductions (depending on whether I want to "set" / couple in the base collection, which is what eduction is good for) so I can compose disparate functions at different points in the code and combine them efficiently. I did this in the context of a web pipeline, where I was chaining a request through different functions to come up with a response. Passing an eduction along, I could just nest it inside other eductions when I wanted to add transducers, then realize the whole thing at the end with an into and render.

Mentally it took me some time to wrap my head around transducers and when and how to use them, so I'm still figuring it out, but I could see myself ending up using them for most things. Rich Hickey, who created clojure, has said if he had thought of them near the beginning he'd have built the whole language around them. But I don't worry about it too much, I mostly just want to get sh-t done and I use them when I can see the opportunity to do so.