As you undertake the journey, you should read about the Calculus Reform movement of the 1990s. A unifying idea of the efforts was to increase conceptual understanding by using symbolic computational systems (Maple, Mathematica, TI-89, etc.) to do calculations, thereby freeing up time and mental bandwidth for conceptual understanding.
An excellent summary of these efforts is found in the article by Deborah Hughes Hallett titled What Have We Learned from Calculus Reform? The Road to Conceptual Understanding. This is chapter 5 in the book A Fresh Start for Collegiate Mathematics book published by the MAA. The article is also available at this University of Arizona website.
In many ways, Calculus Reform took us three steps forward, and then we took one or two steps back. Hughes Hallett provides an excellent summary of the positive changes that persist to this day, including increased conceptual understanding. But as always with reform, there was overreach. Deprecated calculation skills come with a cost. "Calculus without calculation" borders on being an oxymoron.
Another outcome of Calculus Reform was research mathematicians teaching undergraduate mathematics coming to realize how important it is to focus not just on the usual themes of content, textbooks, and curriculum. But we learned how important it is to focus on how people learn mathematics. I think the work of Ed Dubinsky is emblematic of this lesson. He headed a Calculus Reform project at Purdue titled $C^4L$: Calculus, Concepts, Computers and Cooperative Learning. Dubinsky was a constructivist in the sense of Piaget, and gave focus to how learning mathematics involves construction of concepts and knowledge, not only socially (hence the cooperative learning part of $C^4L$) but also in their individual minds. Dubinsky referred to a process he called APOS, which stands for "Action, Process, Object, Schema." See Actions, Processes, Objects, Schemas (APOS) in Mathematics Education
Curriculum innovation alone will not guarantee deeper conceptual understanding. We must also focus on pedagogy and the messiness of how knowledge is constructed.