As far as I know, nobody claimed that this verse,
was abrogated by this verse,
Even though verses with less apparent conflict were claimed abrogated.
Clearly there is no cause to claim abrogation here, because 4:97 refers to those who wronged themselves
, while 4:75 refers to those who had no way out. The oppressed have a duty to migrate away from oppressive regimes if they can
. If they don't, and the result is that they neglect their religion, that's when 4:97 applies.
That is confirmed by the fact that migration from Mecca to Medina was required of all Muslims who could. Then, when the Prophet (PBUH) conquered Mecca, migration was no longer required. The contingency in both rulings was the same: fitna (persecution in religion). It existed prior to the conquest of Mecca and ended then.
In fact, scholars have quoted those migration rulings as a case of abrogation. For instance, Al-Ħaazimi Al-Hamdaani, in his book الاعتبار في الناسخ والمنسوخ من الآثار, presented by Sheikh Zakaria `Umayraat, on pages 160-162, quotes the hadeeth of the Prophet (PBUH) in which he says, "There shall be no more migration after the Conquest [of Mecca]; only jihaad and intention." Narrated by Ibn Abbaas and reported by Al-Bukhaari. The irony is that the Prophet (PBUH) gave the reason for the new ruling right there and then: "after the Conquest", yet Al-Hamdaani lists this case under "The migration mandate and its abrogation"!