They knew this was going to happen.
Although I commend our Russian comrades on assisting NASA to get our astronauts and supplies into space and aboard the ISS, this was bound to happen when we here in the U.S.A regained the ability to launch crewed rockets. But with the Crew Dragon capsule costing $55m a seat vs. Russia's $90m a seat, I think that the Russians need to check their math. Since the Dragon can seat 7 passengers, any room that isn't used can be used for extra cargo, supplies, fuel, oxygen, etc.... Plus the Dragon is reusable, so the cost is actually less than that in terms of materials in the long run. The Soyuz capsule design dates back to the 1960s and has had a number of design modifications since then, but it's still the same basic design from back then. This would indicate that the Soyuz design is a good design because that design has been flying for 60 years now. Why reinvent the wheel if something is working?
With that being said, however, the problem with reusable components is that due to the extreme environments that these components are subjected to, failure is always an option. Lessons from the past have revealed the folly of reusing components and the rigorous inspection regime that is required after each and every use. SpaceX must inspect every square inch of every component of the launch vehicle and the capsule before it can be used again. Fatigue cracks have a way of sneaking up on you in metal structures and components. Just ask any aircraft manufacturer such as Boeing, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, etc... about that in their airplanes. I'm not sure what materials the Dragon is made from, but any material will fail over time. Even carbon fiber has it's failure modes.
Additionally, NASA itself is reusing tried and true designs for their new Space Launch System (SLS) which will be the most powerful rocket ever. They are using the designs of the Space Shuttle rocket engines in it. Once again, if something works, why change it?