Scala has a very wide surface area, and it can be as simple or complex as you want it to be.
Written in a certain way, it's that different from writing Python 3 with PEP-484 type annotations. You can easily write Python-like code and just get things done. :)
Concurrency-wise, you can implement any concurrency model you want on top of it, and, personally, I find immutability + Task-like implementations (Monix, ZIO, IO, etc.) easier to understand than CSP, but that's just me. There's also actors & channels & threads & anything else you could want.
What's cool, though, IMO, is that once you need more power than just Pythonic Scala gives you, it has one of the most powerful type systems in the world; you can verify as much as you need to, and refine things over time. It's not a language that hamstrings you once you do need more power.
Scala gets its bad reputation from that huge surface area and flexibility, though. There was a period (2009ish, maybe) where the Scala community was having a field day with its flexibility via custom operators like '>' and implicit conversions and untyped actors that made it impossible to figure out what was going on. It was like using the worst of Erlang with the worst of Haskell with the worst of Java. I'd say they've matured past that entirely, though; in 2020, it's one of the nicer and more practical languages, ecosystem, & communities IMO. Scala is made for getting things done.