If you ever tried implementing a language, you'll see that dynamic scope is actually much easier. So it's not that language x doesn't implement dynamic scope. It's that language x doesn't actually implement lexical scope so it's left with dynamic scope :)
I'm not sure I understand your sentence (did you mean language x does implement dynamic scope?), but I feel obliged to mention Perl offers lexical scoping as well--within each file and each block.
If you're a lazy language designer dynamic scope sort of emerges from the design proces while one really has to do extra work to support lexical scoping in a language.
Perl 5 has dynamic scoping for backward compatibility with Perl 4, which had only dynamic scoping, and not only that, it botched it so that this code didn't work right:
sub greet {
local ($who) = @_;
print "hello, $who\n";
}
$who = "world";
&greet($who);
This would print, "hello, " with a newline, due to a design bug called "variable suicide", which has been fixed in newer Perls.
Needless to say, this made the extract-subroutine refactoring quite a bit more trouble in Perl 4.
Perl 6 also has dynamic scoping. But I don't think they kept it just for backward compatibility with Perl 4 & 5 :)
Here is another example where dynamic scoping can indeed be very useful:
sub bar { 'bar' }
sub baz { bar() }
sub foo {
no warnings 'redefine';
local *bar = sub { 'My Bar' };
baz();
}
say foo(); # => 'My Bar'
say baz(); # => 'bar'