In short: absolutely. However, the answer is not as simple as that and it is important that we contextualize what we mean when we talk about "practicing segregation". Like all great historical topics, we must talk about talking about the issue then do a deep dive.

The reason why apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow immediately come to mind when segregation is discussed is because some US states and apartheid South Africa codified segregationist and racist practices. Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow argues that what differentiates this type of racial regimes from so more informal regimes (we will get into this later, don't jump the gun) is that by codifying racial regimes, the United States (and similarly South Africa) effectively created a caste system and a group of "untouchables" or "dalits" (whether this argument is going a bit far or not I leave up to you). Interestingly, in the wonderful collection Black Power Beyond Borders Nick Slate details the Dalit Panthers, a group in India who advocated for dalit empowerment by equating their struggle with black empowerment the worldwide and utilized similar imagery, tactics, and rhetoric as the American Black Panther Party, so take that for what it is. All of this is to say that there has been a variety of state's and regimes throughout history that have codified segregation or racial regimes in one way or another: Nazi Germany, Qing China, fascist Italy (eventually), and Rhodesia immediately come to mind.

These racial states, however, have obfuscated the ways in which racism and segregation function in informal and systemic ways. David Goldberg, for instance, has argued that all modern states are in essence racial states as race has been fundamentally integral to the conceptualization and material emergence of citizenship, state institutions, etc. As consequence, a variety of informal regimes of race have been present throughout history. Take for example the nation that many lift up as America's antithesis, Canada. James Daschuk has recently documented the ways that the Canadian state utilized food as a coercive measure to settle Western Canada and have indigenous peoples "voluntarily" move to reserves. Is this segregation? Whilst there was no mandate that indigenous peoples could not live amongst white settlers, there were certainly measures in place to ensure that was the outcome. Or, take for example the province of Nova Scotia. Constance Backhouse has a wonderful piece on Viola Desmond's arrest and subsequent court proceedings I suggest you read to understand how segregation works in often informal ways throughout history. Desmond was denied access to a certain seat in a New Glasgow, being told by the cashier that she "could not sell tickets to you people." The cashier never mentioned "black" or "Negro" yet the implication is clear. Desmond responded by sitting in an area where she was forbidden by the theatre, and was arrested and charged under a provincial statute that contained no reference to race, segregation, etc. The act stipulated that persons who did not pay "an amusement tax" that entered a theatre were subjected to arrest. Since the cashier would only sell Desmond a ticket to the upper balcony (30 cents) and Desmond sat in the lower balcony (40 cents), Desmond was subjected to arrest.

This is but one example. There are countless examples, from employment to housing that effectively serve to segregate communities that are not so easily identifiable as Jim Crow or Nazi Germany. Yet, the end result has often been the same: segregated communities and inequality between those communities.

Further reading:

Michelle Alexander - The New Jim Crow David Goldberg - The Racial State Constance Backhouse - Colour-coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950 Carl Nightengale - Segregation: A Global History of Divided Cities