Square braces [] are easier to type, ever since IBM 2741 terminal that was "widely used on Multics" OS, which in turn had Dennis Ritchie, one of C language creators as dev team member.
Note the absence of curly braces at IBM 2741 layout!
In C, square braces are "taken" as these are used for arrays and pointers. If language designers expected arrays and pointers to be more important / used more frequently than code blocks (which sounds like a reasonable assumption at their side, more on historic context of coding style below), that would mean curly braces would go to "less important" syntax.
Importance of arrays is pretty apparent in the article The Development of the C Language by Ritchie. There's even an explicitly stated assumption of "prevalence of pointers in C programs".
...new language retained a coherent and workable (if unusual) explanation of the semantics of arrays... Two ideas are most characteristic of C among languages of its class: the relationship between arrays and pointers... The other characteristic feature of C, its treatment of arrays... has real virtues. Although the relationship between pointers and arrays is unusual, it can be learned. Moreover, the language shows considerable power to describe important concepts, for example, vectors whose length varies at run time, with only a few basic rules and conventions...
For further understanding of historical context and coding style of the time when C language was created, one needs to take into account that "origin of C is closely tied to the development of the Unix" and, specifically, that porting OS to a PDP-11 "led to the development of an early version of C" (quotes source). According to Wikipedia, "in 1972, Unix was rewritten in the C programming language".
Source code of various old versions of Unix is available online, eg at The Unix Tree site. Of various versions presented there, most relevant seems to be Second Edition Unix dated 1972-06:
The second edition of Unix was developed for the PDP-11 at Bell Labs by Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and others. It extended the First Edition with more system calls and more commands. This edition also saw the beginning of the C language, which was used to write some of the commands...
You can browse and study C source code from Second Edition Unix (V2) page to get an idea of typical coding style of the time.
A prominent example that supports the idea that back then it was rather important for programmer to be able to type square brackets with ease can be found in V2/c/ncc.c source code:
/* C command */
main(argc, argv)
char argv[][]; {
extern callsys, printf, unlink, link, nodup;
extern getsuf, setsuf, copy;
extern tsp;
extern tmp0, tmp1, tmp2, tmp3;
char tmp0[], tmp1[], tmp2[], tmp3[];
char glotch[100][], clist[50][], llist[50][], ts[500];
char tsp[], av[50][], t[];
auto nc, nl, cflag, i, j, c;
tmp0 = tmp1 = tmp2 = tmp3 = "//";
tsp = ts;
i = nc = nl = cflag = 0;
while(++i < argc) {
if(*argv[i] == '-' & argv[i][1]=='c')
cflag++;
else {
t = copy(argv[i]);
if((c=getsuf(t))=='c') {
clist[nc++] = t;
llist[nl++] = setsuf(copy(t));
} else {
if (nodup(llist, t))
llist[nl++] = t;
}
}
}
if(nc==0)
goto nocom;
tmp0 = copy("/tmp/ctm0a");
while((c=open(tmp0, 0))>=0) {
close(c);
tmp0[9]++;
}
while((creat(tmp0, 012))<0)
tmp0[9]++;
intr(delfil);
(tmp1 = copy(tmp0))[8] = '1';
(tmp2 = copy(tmp0))[8] = '2';
(tmp3 = copy(tmp0))[8] = '3';
i = 0;
while(i<nc) {
if (nc>1)
printf("%s:\n", clist[i]);
av[0] = "c0";
av[1] = clist[i];
av[2] = tmp1;
av[3] = tmp2;
av[4] = 0;
if (callsys("/usr/lib/c0", av)) {
cflag++;
goto loop;
}
av[0] = "c1";
av[1] = tmp1;
av[2] = tmp2;
av[3] = tmp3;
av[4] = 0;
if(callsys("/usr/lib/c1", av)) {
cflag++;
goto loop;
}
av[0] = "as";
av[1] = "-";
av[2] = tmp3;
av[3] = 0;
callsys("/bin/as", av);
t = setsuf(clist[i]);
unlink(t);
if(link("a.out", t) | unlink("a.out")) {
printf("move failed: %s\n", t);
cflag++;
}
loop:;
i++;
}
nocom:
if (cflag==0 & nl!=0) {
i = 0;
av[0] = "ld";
av[1] = "/usr/lib/crt0.o";
j = 2;
while(i<nl)
av[j++] = llist[i++];
av[j++] = "-lc";
av[j++] = "-l";
av[j++] = 0;
callsys("/bin/ld", av);
}
delfil:
dexit();
}
dexit()
{
extern tmp0, tmp1, tmp2, tmp3;
unlink(tmp1);
unlink(tmp2);
unlink(tmp3);
unlink(tmp0);
exit();
}
getsuf(s)
char s[];
{
extern exit, printf;
auto c;
char t, os[];
c = 0;
os = s;
while(t = *s++)
if (t=='/')
c = 0;
else
c++;
s =- 3;
if (c<=8 & c>2 & *s++=='.' & *s=='c')
return('c');
return(0);
}
setsuf(s)
char s[];
{
char os[];
os = s;
while(*s++);
s[-2] = 'o';
return(os);
}
callsys(f, v)
char f[], v[][]; {
extern fork, execv, wait, printf;
auto t, status;
if ((t=fork())==0) {
execv(f, v);
printf("Can't find %s\n", f);
exit(1);
} else
if (t == -1) {
printf("Try again\n");
return(1);
}
while(t!=wait(&status));
if ((t=(status&0377)) != 0) {
if (t!=9) /* interrupt */
printf("Fatal error in %s\n", f);
dexit();
}
return((status>>8) & 0377);
}
copy(s)
char s[]; {
extern tsp;
char tsp[], otsp[];
otsp = tsp;
while(*tsp++ = *s++);
return(otsp);
}
nodup(l, s)
char l[][], s[]; {
char t[], os[], c;
os = s;
while(t = *l++) {
s = os;
while(c = *s++)
if (c != *t++) goto ll;
if (*t++ == '\0') return (0);
ll:;
}
return(1);
}
tsp;
tmp0;
tmp1;
tmp2;
tmp3;
It is interesting to note how pragmatic motivation of picking characters to denote language syntax elements based on their use in targeted practical applications resembles Zipf's Law as explained in this terrific answer...
observed relationship between frequency and length is called Zipf's Law
...with the only difference that length in above statement is substituted by / generalized as speed of typing.
