As artificial intelligence (AI) technology progressively integrates into daily life and domestic environments, it instigates a pressing inquiry: What new spatial implications can arise from the integration of artificially intelligent technologies within homes, and what role can these AI technologies play in reinforcing social interaction among humans and between humans and machines? This paper does not predict the future but instead imagines a fictitious trajectory of the possible development of selected technologies and their spatial impacts on domestic environments through design. The aim is to incite a discussion that tests and explores core values that can be adopted or avoided in the future. This process allows for the contemplation and discourse around these novel technologies, thereby increasing the chances of their positive societal impact.

The paper further expands on the underutilised potential of technology within the architectural field compared to other disciplines more adeptly adjusted to the digital age. Utilising the 'Futurecraft' method, it frames a vision of potential futures, thereby encouraging robust discussion about the role of technology, who should design them, and the ideal ways of implementation. Amid the second wave of AI development, the urgency of examining the human-machine relationship is emphasized, especially given the rise and impact of Large Language Models (LLMs), including models like Chat GPT.

The paper posits the need for a 'Living Lab' - a controlled environment where new technologies can be deployed and tested to understand their broader societal impact. It addresses the ethical dilemmas tied to AI's rapid development and the potential adverse effects of these technologies, shedding light on the possible disconnect between humans and their environments brought about by automation. The discussion aims to develop narratives and spaces where individuals can explore their relationship with technology while ensuring safe and ethical implementation.

The study ultimately aspires to create a stronger narrative that will bring about democratic architecture and consider the rise of LLMs within the field of architecture, underscoring their potential impact and significance.

Czechoslovak architecture built in the Communist period, which lasted from 1948 until 1989 holds a negative image in the eyes of the public (Národní Galerie Praha, 2020). Architecture built during the communist regime is frequently criticized for its strong political and ideological background. Moreover, many of these structures are being neglected which further increases their general disfavour. However, this paradigm has started to shift. This is the case, especially amongst the post-communist generation who seems to enjoy this architecture more for its aesthetics and function and they can disconnect this architecture from the regime it was built in (Hatherley, 2015).A more professional audience argues that these buildings are the heritage of the past which should not be seen only in the light of the period when they were built (Národní Galerie Praha, 2020). Many of these structures are deeply functional while maintaining a unique and high aesthetic quality which is often so rare in the region. It is often assumed that the architects who designed these buildings had to collaborate or affiliate with the regime of that time. Yet, almost always the opposite is true (Vladimír Brož, 2019). One of the obvious proofs of this is that many of these architects were removed from their position and any public appearances after they condemned the invasion of the Warsaw pact in 1969. Second, architecture in Czechoslovakia was much more closely associated with art at the time than it is now. As a result, its position in reflecting on the current state of society may have been more significant during Communism, when freedom of expression was more restricted than it is now.An example of these aspects of the former architecture is a building of the Federal Assembly, nowadays known as the New National Museum designed by Karel Prager. The building was built as an extension of an older building that served the stock exchange. Its new function was a Federal Assembly, a parliament. Yet, it only ever held a formal function because it was finished after the invasion of 1968 thus in the period of Normalisation when the ‘power’ was no longer in the hand of Czechoslovakia but rather in the USSR’s.The original purpose of the building was to represent a new, more progressive ruling of the communist party and the architecture should have been the way to communicate this message. However, this never happened because of Normalisation. After 1969, the trust in the communist party fell massively and its physical representation in the form of architecture followed suit. This caused the buildings to become hated objects, despite their design never intending to represent anything closely related to what was happening in the post-invasion period. This hatred still remains in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia who are failing to embrace their past. Yet, the younger generation perceives this architecture more objectively. This fact gives these buildings hope that their future might be still bright.