In the architectural profession we often encounter the notions of the unjustified distinction between research and design, putting them in the antipodal categories of science and art. During a lecture in 2017 on Methodologies of Architectural Reuse, Martin de Jong brought up the highly discussed issue of the relationship between the two aspects and if they affect each other within the architectural process - does being a good analysist make you a better designer and vice versa. [1] Buildings, as part of our living environment, are always situated within a certain context, be it man-made or natural. Through their superimposition they react to the present surroundings, affect and change them, therefore become active components of the setting. In order for the architect to design an edifice that responds to its locale and creates a pleasant user experience, one must learn how to extract knowledge not only from the present context, but from as many practices as possible. Design and research are interdependent practices that cannot be separated by hard borderlines within the field of architecture. They complement and inform each other on the way towards a humanitarian built environment that successfully responds to the needs of its users. Just as the traditional notions of science and art do not exist in detachment, since even in the scientific context every new, not yet proven theory or paradigm is a product of a creative process [2], in architecture design is the tool which asks the right questions while research provides with the right answers.