It's possible to show this for a different version of the problem, where $A$ and $B$ consist of sampling each element of $\{0,\ldots, d\}$ with probability $1/2$. I strongly suspect that this proof extends to $A$ and $B$ as actually defined in your question, just with more careful math.
The idea is to show that $2A$, $2B$, and $A+B$ each have all but $O(1)$ elements of $\{0, \ldots, 2d\}$ in expectation--that is to say, $\text{E}[\{0, \ldots, 2d\}\setminus (A+B)] = O(1)$. This immediately implies that their symmetric difference is also $O(1)$.
Consider $i\in \{0, \ldots, d\}$. Then $i\notin A+B$ only if there is not a $j\in A$ and $k\in B$ with $j + k = i$.
For a given $i$, the probability that either $j\notin A$ or $j-i\notin B$ is at most $3/4$.
Since each element is chosen independently, we can multiply these probabilities, so
\begin{align*}
\Pr[i\notin A+B] &\leq \prod_{j\leq i} \Pr(j\notin A \text{ or } i-j\notin B)\\
&\leq (3/4)^{i+1}.
\end{align*}
A similar argument for $i\in\{d+1,\ldots, 2d\}$ gives $\Pr[i\notin A+B] \leq (3/4)^{2d-i + 1}$.
Then $\text{E}[\{1, \ldots, 2d\}\setminus (A+B)] \leq 2\sum_{i=0}^d (3/4)^{i+1} \leq 8$.
We can do almost the same for $2A$ or $2B$. However, we have to handle the case where $j = i/2$ separately (since $j\in A$ if and only if $j-i\in A$). For $j=i/2$, the probability is $1/2\leq 3/4$, so the math we did above is still an upper bound. Then, $\text{E}[\{1, \ldots, 2d\}\setminus 2A] \leq 2\sum_{i=0}^d (3/4)^{i+1} \leq 8$.
We should note that the elements in the symmetric difference are very likely to be within $O(1)$ of $0$ or $2d$.
For a lower bound, we have
\begin{align*}
\text{E}[|(2A\cup 2B) \triangle (A+B)|] &\geq \Pr(2d\in 2A\text{ and } 2d\notin (A+B))\\
& = \Pr(d\in A \text{ and } d\notin B) = 1/4.
\end{align*}
So the expected symmetric difference size is $\Theta(1)$.
To extend the above bounds to your problem, where we sample without replacement so that $|A| = |B| = (d+1)/2$ deterministically, we need to handle that some of the above events are correlated. But intuitively this should not affect the bottom line. For example, the probability that for some $j$ we do not have both $j\in A$ and $i-j\in B$, should not significantly affect the probability that $j'\in A$ and $i-j'\in B$ for $j\neq j'$. (That said, if $i$ is large (say, $d/2$), then these correlations are significant---but such an $i$ is extremely unlikely to be chosen anyway.)