I had the same reaction of "no market" from the article, but on reflection I suggest turn it around: instead of thinking of it as "a programming environment", think of it as a specific application first, which has customization added to it, and eventually becomes programmable. Seeing it this way, such environments are very common - they are just not presented as "programming environments". And that may be what is different about Hypercard - how it it thought of, not what it actually was.

- I think macro-recording etc counts as a trivialized programming environment

- Many standard desktop applications are programmable (though today point, they just throw in a pre-existing language) - Word processors (Word uses VB, .net; OpenOffice uses Java/Python; Adobe acrobat uses Javascript. I think you'll find in earlier word-processors (for eg), they had more limited programming environments, before that, not fully programmable scripting; before that, only macros, before that only specific and limited explicit configuration... and before that, no customization at all.

- Flash authoring tools can do what Hypercard did, and more; they are also very easy to use for simple things, and even do it in a similar way to hypercard (but include a full programming environment for more complex things, like spreadsheets do). NOTE: flash's programming abilities have been enhanced tremendously over the years. I don't know the origins, but I wouldn't be surprised if it initially didn't have a "programming" capability, but just customizing some aspects of playing movies.

- html + javascript itself is not that different from hypercard, especially if you include an "authoring tool", of which a great many exist.

- wiki's are also hyperlink based...

- online forms (wufoo, google forms) - they derive a database from forms (like ORM, but skipping the objects, to be "FRM"), and include constraints, different paths, and reporting tools.

- vim has a programming language, but it's about as pretty as programming with a spreadsheet. This is because it evolved from something simpler, to get specific tasks done - I don't think vi was programmable! certainly not in the earliest versions (emacs is the exception, beginning with an actual programming language). I'm not even sure that shells were initially programmable for that matter... and that's about as close to a programmer as a tool can get.

[Also please check my follow-up comments, esp: visicalc was not initially about programming.]

---

TL;DR I put it to you that any tool can have automation added on to it - and if we view it this way, "trivialized (or specialized) programming environments" are the norm, not the exception. Their goal is not "programming", but to solve the specific problems and meet the specific needs of their users.
But the natural direction of a customization/configuration is programmability (and then to add programming features to help manage complexity, e.g. libraries, namespaces etc). It might take a while to get there. Some instances we see are only part-way there (see above); some stop growing/die before becoming attaining that level of customizability.

Going back to flash, ActionScript 3 added optional static types, enabling dramatically faster performance; before then, it was a version of Javascript; before that, it was a kind of hacked together script thing. I don't know what they had way back in Flash 1.0, but I suspect it wasn't yet programmable... just as visicalc 1.0 wasn't programmable...