That depends a lot on what you think the difference between adaptation and alteration is. The brain is substantially evolved in favor of fallback structures, hence why crazy shit like hemispherectomies are possible without utterly or even functionally killing the attached mind.
Pretty much every inch of the brain is like that, failed cerebrum functions will almost always in some way fall back to the cerebellum or the brainstem if they can, and that's rare enough because most things just get picked up by the undamaged hemisphere of the cerebrum.
That's not even getting into the occasional autonomy from the CNS, PNS, or the "gut brain".
But as amazing as all that is, it's all focused towards the singular goal of retaining functionality. It will never attain new functionality by doing this. New functionality, neuroplasticity, is an entirely different process that would be hampered by any fallback system being needed. Yet we do not well understand neuroplasticity. Kevin Warwick's experiments suggested it has very high potential, but that's just one radical project.
Furthermore, saying that neuroplasticity is a different process is just an educated guess based on what little we know, but could just be the fallback system responding to "damage" that doesn't exist when the brain notices a new input that it lacks a map for.
tl;dr we don't know shit accidentally drifted into natural philosophy send help