Like most other concepts and ideas in society does Democracy evolve and change? If so - where is it going? Better or worse?
Democracy means decision making by the people, and always has. But the definition leaves a lot of wiggle room, since there are questions it does not address, such as "who are the people?", "which decisions do they make?", "when there is a decision to be made, how are possible courses of action proposed and considered?", and "how are conflicts resolved?"
"The people" has evolved. In England at one time, only landowners could participate in elections. In many countries two hundred years ago, only men could vote. Today, every adult is allowed to vote in most (all? I have no idea) countries. I'd count this as a positive change.
"In which decisions do the people participate?" Usually, people only get to choose candidates to make decisions for them (representative democracy) and this has been the case throughout the modern era. The people are only allowed to make decisions directly in rare cases (usually called referendums.) Even then, the set of choices, and the way the outcome is computed, is not decided by the people. Here, democracy has not evolved, even though modern technology could allow the public to make decisions easily and regularly, at low cost.
"When there is a decision to be made, how are possible courses of action proposed and considered?" Concerning the decision of who to elect, almost anyone is typically allowed to run for office, and each candidate must find some way to convince voters to vote for them. Once in office, an official then helps make decisions on behalf of the people. The details vary from country to country, but generally, one person proposes a bill and then it goes through a period of revision and debate in a legislature. The process is often declared in the constitution, so if the process works poorly, the country is permanently hurt by it.
It seems to me that all of these things - the way candidates are chosen, how they win the hearts of the people, and how decisions are made in legislatures - change very little over time, even when the problems are obvious (e.g. the U.S. electoral college).
"How are conflicts resolved?" is an important question that is often ignored, and therefore does not evolve over time. To choose one candidate among several, for example, many countries including the U.S. and Canada use Single Plurality (first-past-the-post) voting. Yet people familiar with the properties of alternatives know that Single Plurality is one of the worst possible systems. Australia actually recognized this and tried to fix it by introducing Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), yet this system doesn't work much better in practice and from a purely mathematical perspective, it is utterly nonsensical. Mathematically and intuitively, Ranked Pairs is arguably the best system for choosing one candidate among several, but for choosing many candidates (e.g. for a legislature), a proportional representation system would probably be better (I would say so definitively, except that I know less about it).
Finally, I would add that whether "democracy is getting better or worse" is not a question we should be concerned with per se. In my opinion, democracy should not be an end in itself, but rather a means - one of many - to maintain/improve the overall happiness and contentedness of society's people. It accomplishes this primarily by ensuring that small numbers of people do not have excessive amounts of power, because the decisions of small groups tend to be at the expense of everyone else. If democracy fails to assist general happiness, then we may as well dump it. Direct democracy is certainly more "democratic" than representative democracy, but we should only want it insofar as it would result in better decision-making.