In the second equation, "Supposing that β=1, y∼N(0,1), x∼N(0,1) and x,
y are independent" is defining another model and hence another
distribution on $u$, which is unrelated with the $u$ introduced in the
first equation.
This mistake is called the fiducial fallacy, named after Fisher's attempt at turning likelihoods into probability distributions. When inverting $y = \beta x + u$ where $x,u\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}\mathbf{N}(0,1)$, into $u=y-\beta x$, $y$ and $x$ are not independent and $u$ remains, both marginally and conditionally (on $x$), a $\mathbf{N}(0,1)$ variate.
Indeed, if we set from the original model, where $y=\beta x +u$, $x,u\stackrel{\text{iid}}{\sim}\mathbf{N}(0,1)$, the joint density of $(x,u)$ is $$\exp\{-(x^2+u^2)/2\}/2\pi\tag{1}$$ hence the joint density of $(y,x)$ is $$\exp\{-(x^2+[y-\beta x]^2)/2\}/2\pi\tag{2}$$ as the Jacobian is equal to one and the joint density of $(y,u)$ is $$\exp\{-(u^2+\beta^{-2}[y-u]^2)/2\}/2\pi\beta\tag{3}$$ as the Jacobian is equal to $1/\beta$. Therefore the
- marginal distribution of $u$ when integrating $x$ out in (1) or $y$ in (3) is $\mathbf{N}(0,1)$
- conditional distribution of $u$ given $x$ in (1) is $\mathbf{N}(0,1)$
- conditional distribution of $u$ given $y$ in (3) is $\mathbf{N}((1+\beta^2)^{-1}y,(1+\beta^{-2})^{-1})$
- distribution of $u$ as the transform $u=y-\beta x$ of $(x,y)$ distributed from (2) is $\mathbf{N}(0,1)$