In my contribution/exposé I admit the fundamental status of the CfP question 'How are design and environment intertwined, or when does environment become design and vice versa?', but considering the environment primarily in the socio-economic sense. I do that in view of post-socialism developments in Central Eastern Europe (CEE), respective, in view of the switch from pre-1989 real-socialist urbanism to post 1989 and current developments (usually understood as liberal or neoliberal).
I am to expose this socio-economically understood change of the environment on the case of Prague. In the economy of scarcity (real socialism economy) - while having ambitious urban plans of alterations of the city, limited resources had led, in the 'socialist utopia' era, to the paradox of Prague as an old preserved city (relatively limited demolition in general [e. g. not realizing demolition of historical neighborhood Žižkov] and building of panel housing estates on green meadow at the city margins instead, large urban planning projects or individual projects with city-wide impact [e. g. 'Prague city highway' through the city]).
This may be contrasted with (post)colonial individual interventions at the expense of public interest in the liberal/neoliberal era (demolitions and build up in Prague heritage reservation area and shopping mall and administrative centers build-up in purely residential areas of inner circle of historical residential neighborhoods). In this light, what has been the role of non-development (before 1989) and natural development within its own limits after 1989 (post-socialist local self-regentrification of originally historically bourgeois neighborhoods [Vinohrady, Letná, Vršovice])? Talking about above indicated, I am to touch the topic areas of 'utopia and social engineering', '(post)colonial environments', 'design, destruction, and (spatial) inequality' and 'dwelling and everyday design'.