No budget forces you to have better ideas instead of better equipment.

Money can substitute for invention up to a point, and when it is available that substitution happens without anyone choosing it. Without the option, a problem has to be solved some other way, which is uncomfortable and often produces the more interesting answer. This is not an argument that having less is better. It means the constraint is workable rather than fatal.

Ask what you would do if the budget were zero, even when it is not. Try that version first, and buy your way out only if the idea genuinely needs it.