Whether a language is compiled or interpreted has nothing to do with its design. For instance, you can interpret C++ with Cling or compile it with Clang. You can compile Python or interpret it. Same with Rust.
Otherwise, you've conflated a bunch of things. Interepreted languages don't need to have a GC, or lifetime annotations, or anything else, really. Static typing doesn't require explicit type annotations, although it tends to have them, and neither is the domain of exclusively interpreted or compiled languages. And so on.
I also argue there's no meaningful distinction between "designed for bare metal" and "designed for application programming" other than a language that is designed to allow deployment on bare metal has a way for you to poke memory locations and at minimum turn off a GC. Everything above and beyond that is language features or libraries and by no means limits your ability to operate quickly and efficiently in either domain.
Otherwise, you've conflated a bunch of things. Interepreted languages don't need to have a GC, or lifetime annotations, or anything else, really. Static typing doesn't require explicit type annotations, although it tends to have them, and neither is the domain of exclusively interpreted or compiled languages. And so on.
I also argue there's no meaningful distinction between "designed for bare metal" and "designed for application programming" other than a language that is designed to allow deployment on bare metal has a way for you to poke memory locations and at minimum turn off a GC. Everything above and beyond that is language features or libraries and by no means limits your ability to operate quickly and efficiently in either domain.