Honestly? I doubt it.
Rust is a language that has a lot of friction for doing things the wrong way. This is great for people who care about the quality of code. Scientists, as a class, don't. And they shouldn't have to! That's not their job. But it's harder to write readable, modular, efficient code than it is to slap things together and call it good until the day it runs too slow. Rust is, as a whole, really well-designed because it has friction in the right places to make you think a little harder and try a little more to find a better (more obvious, more modular, more efficient...) solution. It frontloads that long-term work.
MATLAB and Python are both languages with very little of this kind of friction, and I think that's why they work so well in the design space. Not every little Python script you write in the design phase will actually turn out to be used in actual simulation / implementation. There are scenarios where writing in Python now, and rewriting in another language six months to a year from now is the correct business decision. I don't think this has much to do with libraries. Your first sloppy implementation probably won't even be written by the same people who write the final version. Those are different skill sets.
If any language can bridge the gap in this respect (that is, be a language that's good both for sloppy initial implementation and for long-term development), it's probably Julia. Rust really isn't trying. Rust leans hard into the programmer's side of things, and I think that's good. There need to be languages like Rust. But it won't ever be the language taught to undergraduate physics majors. That would be a waste of their time.
What would that imply? Changing the language to make it as frictionless as Python? That's a fool's errand; besides, most of the friction is there for a good reason. Writing/linking linear algebra libraries? Yes, let's do that! But let's not imagine that any amount of library code, short of a proc macro that interprets a whole new mini-language, will make ndarray as simple as MATLAB.
Incidentally, I think you're wrong here:
I am almost certain that the most used programming language for scientific programming, simulation, and data analysis in engineering design is Excel. And if you're going to say "That's a spreadsheet, not a programming language!" you've missed the point. People use Excel not because it's the best tool for the job (except when it is, of course), but because it's straightforward. A bright 13 year old (or a subject matter expert in a field unrelated to software development) can learn how a spreadsheet works in a day. MATLAB is more complicated on a level, but the principle applies. There will always be people who know linear algebra, have a problem they need to solve with a computer, and have the patience to learn MATLAB or Python or Julia, but not Rust, because Rust (by design!) requires attention to a whole different level of detail.