Common Lisp was designed without requiring TCO because:
* various platforms don't support TCO. It was designed such that it can be implemented by a simple non-TCO interpreter, transpiled to a non-TCO C compiler, compiled to a non-TCO Lisp Machine CPU, or to a non-TCO virtual machine (like the JVM). Many languages don't support TCO on the JVM and may only implement explicit tail recursion or have a compiler detecting tail recursion - which is far from supporting TCO. Thus a portable conforming Common Lisp program will run in ABCL (a full Common Lisp implementation on top of the JVM) - because it will not depend on TCO to not blow up the stack, or similar.
* another reason was that Lisp has a bunch of features with don't work that well with TCO. For example Lisp always supported various dynamic scoping constructs and made extensive use of those - something which Scheme in its core does not, but provides via libraries or language extensions. Using dynamic scoping constructs makes TCO more difficult, may require a different language design, etc.
I agree with you on the first point. There are good technical reasons why TCO can't be implemented on some platforms. However, that just punts the issue one level down the stack: These platforms should have built in support for guaranteed TCO.
As for language features like dynamic scoping, I would say that a function call which needs to be followed by some cleanup activity is not in tail position, so TCO would not apply. The cleanup code could be in tail position, however, if implemented as a function call. In Common Lisp most forms of dynamic scoping or unwinding are explicit anyway, so this shouldn't come as a surprise as it might in languages like C++ and Rust where destructors are called implicitly when objects go out of scope.
Macros would need to specify whether any expressions will be evaluated in tail position. However, expressions in macros don't look like they should be subject to TCO, so the default assumption should be that they aren't unless declared otherwise. Do you have any examples of cases that would be likely to cause confusion—in particular where a function call appears to occur in tail position in the code but can't be TCO'd because of a macro?
For example I see sometimes macros which generate code with compilation quality (speed, ...) declarations for all or parts of their code. Depending on the combination of qualities TCO might be enabled or disabled in code sections.
If TCO is guaranteed at the language level, as in Scheme, then it will always be enabled regardless of compilation settings. Debug builds are no more tolerant of stack space leaks than release builds. The fact that TCO isn't guaranteed is the problem here.
Your point? The page you linked to specifically says that Kawa only implements a subset of modern Scheme—by which I mean R5RS or later. Early versions of the Scheme language standard didn't require TCO, but all the recent ones do. This doesn't affect the core point that if TCO is guaranteed by the language standard, as in modern Scheme, then it cannot be selectively disabled because doing so would break perfectly compliant code.
* various platforms don't support TCO. It was designed such that it can be implemented by a simple non-TCO interpreter, transpiled to a non-TCO C compiler, compiled to a non-TCO Lisp Machine CPU, or to a non-TCO virtual machine (like the JVM). Many languages don't support TCO on the JVM and may only implement explicit tail recursion or have a compiler detecting tail recursion - which is far from supporting TCO. Thus a portable conforming Common Lisp program will run in ABCL (a full Common Lisp implementation on top of the JVM) - because it will not depend on TCO to not blow up the stack, or similar.
* another reason was that Lisp has a bunch of features with don't work that well with TCO. For example Lisp always supported various dynamic scoping constructs and made extensive use of those - something which Scheme in its core does not, but provides via libraries or language extensions. Using dynamic scoping constructs makes TCO more difficult, may require a different language design, etc.