The problem that discussed is less an issue to the contexts, but a general critical reflection on the disciplinary of architecture. The determinant role of architects in design process and free interpretation of the inhabitants pose the conflictions. Our (architects) creativities and imaginations are confined within the given role and limited with operabilities. Given the roles of designers, we keep outputting active forms for specific functions under the established rules. Programs, dimensions, functions and circulations etc. are introduced into the design, not necessary for the needs of inhabitants, but the demands for well-functioned and convenient purposes. While inhabitants’ perceptions and sensations are constrained within the frameworks set up by the architects. The understandings of determinacy in space are always structured under the existing systems. Even though, it remains a certain extent of indeterminacy in these spaces which is hardly controllable by the ‘dictators.' The inhabitants construct our understanding of the environments by composing fragmented pieces that we encountered by chance. Even if buildings have significantly been distanced from social life through technical and bureaucratic processes, architecture still reflects society. The fast rate of social and technological change and an increasingly autonomous building process led in the same period to a widespread belief in loose-fit between buildings and their contents, and a romantic desire for open-ended flexibility.