Have you taught this course before? After teaching it several times from Millman/Parker and other materials using Birkhoff's axioms, I suggest you consider using Euclid himself plus Hartshorne's guide, Geometry: Euclid and beyond, which uses a form of Hilbert's axioms.
The problem for me is that real numbers are much more sophisticated than Euclidean geometry, and the Birkhoff approach is thus a bit backwards except for experts like us who know what real numbers are.
When we covered as much of Millman/Parker as we could manage, the most enjoyable part for the class was the section on neutral geometry, which I learned recently was lifted bodily from Euclid Book I.
If you like assuming that every line in the plane is really the real numbers R, what about going the rest of the way and assuming the plane itself is R^2? Then you can use matrices to define rigid motions and do a lot that connects up to their calculus courses.
Moise is more succinct than the 500 pages suggests as I recall, and is an excellent text from a mathematician's standpoint, but very forbidding probably from a student's. I noticed Moise went from 1.4 to 1.9 pounds from 1st edition to third so maybe the first is also 25% shorter.
The old SMSG books in the 1960's were based on Birkhoff's approach, but are not short. They are also available free on the web.
I just looked at the old SMSG book and found the following circular sort of discussion of real numbers: "if you fill in all those other non rational points on the line, you have the real numbers."
Clint McCrory spent several years developing his own course using Birkhoff's approach at UGA, and made it very successful. Here is a link to his course page. The students loved his class at least in its evolved form after a couple years. they especially appreciated the GSP segment at the start. Apparently many students had little geometric intuition and used that to acquire some. Clint apparently never found an appropriate book to use though.
http://www.math.uga.edu/~clint/2008/geomF08/home.htm
After teaching this course myself from Greenberg, Millman/Parker, Clemens, supplemented by Moise, and the original works of Saccheri, my own Birkhoff axioms, I finally found Euclid and Hartshorne to be my favorite, by a large margin.
But the beauty of the topic is that there is no perfect choice. You will likely enjoy the search for your favorite too. There is a reason however that Euclid has the longevity it has.
In a nutshell, there are two equivalent concepts, similarity and area, that are treated in opposite order in Euclid and Birkhoff. Euclid's theory of equal content, via equidecomposability, in his Book I, allows him to use area to prove the fundamental principle of similarity in Book VI. Birkhoff assumes similarity as an axiom, and area is relatively easy using similarity, e.g. similarity allows one to show that the formula A = (1/2)BH for area of a triangle is independent of choice of base. Euclid himself uses similarity to deduce a general Pythagorean theorem in Prop. VI.31, whose proof many people prefer as "simpler" than Euclid's own area based proof of Pythagoras in Prop.I.47. The problem is that there has, to my knowledge, never been a civilization in which similarity or proportionality developed before the idea of decomposing and reassembling figures. Briefly, congruence, on which equidecomposability is based, is more fundamental than similarity. Hence, although logically either concept can be used to deduce the other, it seems to me at least that the more primitive concept should be placed first in a course.
To answer your first question, that the label "analytic geometry" is found in the title of a calculus book doesn't mean what you might think. The reality is that in the 1960s and 1970s most calculus books had a title like "Calculus with Analytic Geometry". My father was a high school math teacher and he had a lot of these books on his shelves at home. Nearly all of them had that title. The point was that analytic geometry = coordinate geometry and these books had preliminary sections on coordinate geometry before they jumped into discussing calculus. Thus they were titled "Calculus with Analytic Geometry" to emphasize the review aspect on coordinate geometry. This way a teacher could direct students to read over chapters on coordinate geometry which would be needed in calculus (if that material wasn't taught directly in the course.)
In recent years the buzzword to have in the title of a calculus book is "Early Transcendentals", which means the author includes a discussion of transcendental functions earlier than usual in the book. (The book you mention by Simmons has some interesting features, but it is not a widely used book anymore and in particular is not used in courses like the ones at Harvard and MIT which you mention as your "model" for a course you're perhaps interested in.) In any case, the style of calculus book like Simmons aren't the ones you should be interested in anyway. You want to look at genuine math books, like Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis.
To answer your second question, non-Euclidean and projective geometry can have a place in the curriculum, but they might not appear in courses titled "Non-Euclidean Geometry" or "Projective Geometry" if you're trying to find them in US course catalogs. For example, the topics might be in a course with a bland name like Geometry. Also, courses on algebraic geometry will certainly have discussions of projective geometry. [Edit: At Harvard, the course on non-Euclidean geometry is targeted at the students who do not know how to write proofs because their prior experience with math focused on computation more than conceptual thinking. The more experienced math majors there bypass that course. That the primary objects of interest in high school math seem to disappear in more advanced math makes mathematics different from most other sciences. Students of chemistry, say, would not encounter such an abrupt change.]
Concerning your PS, which I think is actually the most important part of your posting, go over to IUM (НМУ, mccme.ru) this week and speak to the faculty and students there. You will get practical and useful answers to your questions from them since they know first-hand the situation you are noticing as regards the curriculum situation and how to get a good math education in Moscow. In particular, you should look at the courses offered at IUM and consider attending them.
Best Answer
I wonder whether Igor Pak's "Lectures on Discrete and Polyhedral Geometry" might be appropriate as a textbook for an undergraduate geometry course. This is still in preliminary form, available on his website. In the introduction he describes a selection of topics from the book that could be used for a basic undergraduate course. There seem to be lots of exercises, and at a quick glance a lot of the topics look quite interesting. This whole subject is way outside my expertise, however, so I have no idea if the book would make a good basis for a course like the one you'll be teaching.