The O.E.D. gives 12 definitions of the word 'for' in the link you posted (the American dictionary page linked to gives many more, but I lost the will to live after the first three dozen, so let's just stick to the O.E.D. for now).
The answer is easy: none of the 12 definitions listed is appropriate for the word 'for' in the context you've cited ('done for').
The O.E.D. is mostly only listing definitions of the word that fulfill some kind of counting function ('for 300 yards', 'for 12 years', 'for £1.20', 'for the 3rd time', '2 bottles for your 1') or some form of possession (it lists objects, persons and feelings belonging to someone: 'you', 'Napoleon', 'everyone', 'the department', 'the Open University', 'her family').
Significantly, it gives a dozen definitions - all of which have some merit as independent, separate meanings of the word, in various contexts.
The significance, to my mind, is that there are so many definitions: perhaps more than for any other word in the dictionary. And that, even so, the list given does not cover the usage you are citing (in 'done for').
This suggests, to me, that the word 'for', by reason of its extreme antiquity, deriving from the Anglo-Saxon roots of the English language (reference has been made to it being used in c.900 AD), only has a meaning in context. Or perhaps one should say, it has so many meanings - due to its antiquity - because it has acquired its meaning from its context (unlike most words, which can generally be understood apart from any context).
Short words of Anglo-Saxon origin (for, of, at) tend to be inordinately flexible in meaning and usage. It suggests that these are words which the language built up around. They have no invariant meaning, and only acquire meaning from the context. There is, accordingly, more truth than you suspected in your remark that 'most prepositions have so many meanings'.
Most words have multiple meanings, and those which have been around the longest have acquired the most. No word ever came 'pre-defined', all words originally acquired their meaning from their context. But there are few words you could have chosen which would have made that point more clearly than this one.
In the context you've specified, the word 'for' can only mean doomed. It can't possibly mean anything else. Yet the O.E.D. gives it 12 different meanings, in 12 different contexts, none of them remotely similar to this. The implication is that one could go on, indefinitely, citing examples of this word in different contexts. The O.E.D. doesn't attempt that. Dictionaries have limitations. Languages don't.