Maybe the reason for this has more to do with the type of development structure that helps a language get scale.
The rich powerful development environments you've described exist primarily in proprietary, integrated environments. If you want to integrate the editor, debugger, OS, and language, it helps to be able to coordinate the design of all those components.
On the other hand, languages that have gotten to huge popular scale have typically been more open in their specification and implementation process. Perhaps this is because the creators of breakthrough tools that drive language adoption (like web frameworks or data science kits) prefer these tools, or because the sorts of conditions that lead to creation of such tools are inherently marginalized ones. In other words, if you're a happy iOS developer using a lovely integrated world of xcode and swift, you're not going to spot a dramatically underserved development niche.
Both Scheme and Common Lisp have been open standards since their inception. And both have excellent IDEs available, both commercial and open-source (Clozure CL for Common Lisp and Racket for Scheme).
I did my masters thesis in 1986 on Coral Common Lisp on a Macintosh Plus with 800k floppies and 1 MB of RAM. It had an IDE that would still be competitive today, indeed is in some ways still superior to anything available today. All this was possible because it was Common Lisp and not C. The language design really is a huge factor.
(Coral has today evolved into Clozure Common Lisp, which is completely free and open (Apache license). You really should try it.)
Lisps are great. Why do you think they haven't been at the forefront of any big trends in application development? Things like the web, mobile apps, data science ...
My guess at an argument here is that the languages popular in the 80s drove the curriculum design of most Computer Science education, and the relative absence of the Lisps (to today) makes the languages seem less approachable to practicing programmers than they really should be.
On the other hand, you can find a lot of Lisp's influence in something like Python (though obviously with many differences both superficial and deep). So in that case, why are Python IDEs so much worse than what you'd see in Lisp? (And is that even the case? Maybe there's just more Python devs and thus more IDEs and like anything, most are crap; but if there one or two great ones then does Lisp really have an advantage there?)
The rich powerful development environments you've described exist primarily in proprietary, integrated environments. If you want to integrate the editor, debugger, OS, and language, it helps to be able to coordinate the design of all those components.
On the other hand, languages that have gotten to huge popular scale have typically been more open in their specification and implementation process. Perhaps this is because the creators of breakthrough tools that drive language adoption (like web frameworks or data science kits) prefer these tools, or because the sorts of conditions that lead to creation of such tools are inherently marginalized ones. In other words, if you're a happy iOS developer using a lovely integrated world of xcode and swift, you're not going to spot a dramatically underserved development niche.