Question

Regarding tradition and conservatism, and perhaps this is also connected to the issue of the status of secular courts.
The following paragraph is copied from a source sheet for a lesson by Rabbi David Yutkovitz this past Sabbath (26 Sivan 5782).
Responsa of the Chazon Ish (siman 295, according to Otzar HaChochma, Kovetz Igrot I:186) – In earlier times, Israel was “a people that dwells alone”; all Jewish matters were decided according to Jewish law. No one was found submitting his petitions before secular courts. Even the sale of houses was done in a Jewish religious court. Many did not understand the language of the gentiles at all, and in their secluded lives the sounds of Jewish speech were dear to them, while the sounds of the gentiles were foreign to them. In such a situation, the practice existed of a city having two names: the name the Jews called it and the name the gentiles called it. But now, when every Jew is integrated with their courts in all his affairs, and Jews have no emotional preference at all for the name Breslau over the name Wroclaw, and on the contrary, the new name is dearer to them than the old name of their destroyers, and they use it every day in writing documents of loans and sales and taxes and rates and other dealings with the government and the post office, and Jews have also adopted this practice in bills of divorce, this established that name as the primary one.
If I understood correctly, from other sources brought in the lesson, the halakhic decisors who preceded the Chazon Ish disagreed over which of the names that Jews gave to a city or river is the one that should be written in a bill of divorce, and what the status of the Jewish name is relative to the name given by the gentiles. And here the Chazon Ish seems to set aside everything his predecessors said.
Is the Chazon Ish making a halakhic change on the basis of a change in the facts?
There is a discussion of this topic by Nadav Shnerb, Keren Zavit, Vayetze.