Entirely case by case. It's further confounded by the fact that a bunch of things that are bad for us don't exert strong selective pressure in the first place.
This assumes we understand how these things work in the first place. It’s very likely our understanding of evolution is incomplete.
I make this mistake a lot:
1. See thing that’s been done a long time a certain way
2. Modern recommendation is don’t do thing
3. Revised modern recommendation says “actually wait, do thing”
4. Revised modern recommendation is now ok because our incomplete model has been updated, whereas it should have always been ok because it’s been that way for a long time
Put another way: we should give more weight to a repeated pattern observed over thousands of years and heavily question any science that goes against it. Both sides are just estimations, but nowadays it’s almost assumed “old ways bad”. Way too many cases that end up being “way humans have operated for millennia is actually ok”.
In other words, the default hypothesis when we find that something humans often did in the past is bad for our health should certainly not be that there is some evolutionary advantage to the behavior. We are a fairly homogeneous population that has suffered several severe bottlenecking events, has fairly long and slow reproductive cycles, and has relatively few children. We also have aggressive active immune systems. Under these circumstances selective pressure is not super high, even before accounting for any of the modern life factors people often bring up. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all obviously, just that it's very case by case.