No, at least not in the sense that you seem to be getting at. The generals did not meet to discuss which field they'd like to host their battle; they either found terrain that would be advantageous against an attack and take up a position there, or attacked the enemy where they were. Battles happen where the armies are; they can have all kinds of different reasons for being in the same place, whether they want a key piece of ground or to defeat the enemy army.

There is an element of mutual agreement in this setup; it was very hard to attack an army that didn't want to fight a battle. Retreating in column of march was much faster than attacking in line of battle, and with armies largely marching as single, unitary bodies, it was hard to ensnare an enemy like you might with multiple corps. Even at Hochkirch, when Frederick the Great was attacked by surprise at night with superior numbers, he was able to extract his army in good order. Not only did one army have to move out of its fortified positions to deploy and advance, but the other army had to stay put while they did so. Not retreating when an enemy deployed into battle formation was called 'offering battle'; an army typically did so when they had a strong position or a superiority of numbers.

These are the exact circumstances that would make an attacker think twice about the undertaking; as a result, battles were not necessarily the main operation for armies in the 18th century. Increasingly scientific sieges, which proceeded according to well-established structures, were seen as the main means at the army's disposal. Wars of the 18th century were typical fought to secure discrete territories, rather than destroy one's enemies; you didn't even need to secure the territory you wanted, just the equivalent that you could then trade to your enemy in negotiations. There were limits to what the rulers of 18th century states could demand from their possessions for an offensive war, and these rarely sufficed for the wholesale destruction and conquest of one's enemy. Soldiers were quite dear, as they required extensive training (=time=money) to be effective, so bloody battles were not very appealing. In this environment, the systematic reduction of a fortress, and the resulting domination of the surrounding territory, formed the real goal of a campaign. Marches, raids, and battles were means to this end.

A good example is the Malplaquet campaign in the War of Spanish Succession. Essentially, the French took up a position athwart the route the Allies were going to besiege Mons, fortifying it with a line of redans. This was an offer of battle; the Allies could either attack this position, withdraw, or continue on to Mons with this huge French army behind them. Both sides had decided [agreed, after a fashion] to fight a battle in this spot, though largely without communicating their intents to each other. Though the Allies nominally won the battle, they had taken such heavy casualties in the assault that they could not besiege Mons, and ultimately Britain dropped out of the war.

Please, let me know if you have any follow up questions; there's a lot that goes into picking battlefields in the 18th century, so I'd be glad to address things in more detail.