Best practice IMO is to just do it. You'll get better at structuring a thought process for it. For example first you should notice any immediate threats from the last move and check if any of your immediate threats or captures can win something.
Also, 30 minutes per side isn't about finding the absolute best move you can in every position. Try to limit your intense analysis of many different moves for so called "critical positions." This will probably only happen 1-2 times a game. This should be a position that lends itself to calculation i.e. tactical or forcing moves (or an endgame). The rest of the time you're playing moves with relatively little calculation and just on general principal.
For example you see you need to develop your queenside and you see your opponent has no immediate threats, so you choose Nc6, make sure Nc6 doesn't lose anything, then move there. Agonizing over Nc6 before or after Be6 or agonizing over Rfd1 vs Rad1 just wastes time in a 30 minute game in a non-tactical position. For non-critical positions you just need a reasonable move that's tactically sound. (A reasonable move is one that fits in with the needs of the position e.g. development in the opening, to queenside expansion or kingside attack or improving a piece etc).
learning to play OK under time control
Sort:
This question goes out to anybody who started out as a novice and got much better with practice. I assume some of your study must have been untimed, for example puzzles or correspondence chess. How did you transfer that skill/knowledge to timed play?
In my case, I'm getting quite good at puzzles, and decent at correspondence chess. But for timed chess, even with 30 mins for each side, I can't analyze many possibilities. It's one thing to make a good move if I can think as long as I want, another thing entirely to find the answer quickly :).
Did you find that your speed improved as your overall chess knowledge increased? Or did you have to train specifically to think more quickly?