Yes, to a certain extent. In economics this is called the 'rebound effect'.
The rebound effect is that the effectiveness of a new techology or measure is reduced because it is counter-acted by other parts of the system.
To give an example: people who insulate their house tend to keep their house at a higher temperature than before the insulation was done. It has been suggested that people do this because they can now afford it or because they feel like they already did 'enough' to save energy. The above is an example of a 'direct rebound effect'. Since the insulation saves some money, this money may be spend on other services that require energy, which is an example of an 'indirect rebound effect'. What you are referring to in your question is actually a 3rd type, called 'economic-wide rebound effect'.
The rebound effect almost always occurs to some extent in all kinds of sustainability improvements. It's even possible that the rebound-effect fully counter-acts the measures taken and that the net-effect is negative, the situation gets worse. This is also called Jevons paradox.
How big the total effect of a technology or policy change is is very difficult to determine and has led to a debate between scientists. I'm not sure what the outcome of that debate is, but it seems there are no indications that negative effects are common. Most changes seem to have a net positive effect, albeit that it's less than it one might expect at first.
In any case it is important to be aware that the rebound effect exists and that it is taken into account when creating and implementing new technology and policy changes.