Iris van der TuinThe popular literature about design, quite widely available on the World Wide Web, features a useful distinction between 'doing by design' and 'design by doing'. The first slogan points at practices of following step-by-step manuals or taking tick-box approaches, the second at working toward solutions in more messy ways. Whereas linear manuals or top-down approaches can be adjusted to local situations, the local situation itself is often a 'meshwork' in which conservative and innovative forces inter-and intra-act. Philosopher and artist Manuel DeLanda, who works in the field of architecture and design, differentiates between 'self-organized meshworks of diverse elements' and 'hierarchies of uniform elements' which 'not only coexist and intermingle, [but also] constantly give rise to one another' (DeLanda 1997: 32; emphasis in original). The slogan 'design by doing', read through DeLanda, incorporates both, the necessity to be critical of top-down linearity, and the celebration of the potential playfulness of bottom-up and lateral movements in the design process. Top-down linearity refers to technologies and techniques that exclude and oppress bodies that do not fit hegemonic forms and molds. DIY cultures of design, and forms of 'critical making', respond to such exclusion and oppression while also, and at the same time, remaining open to new opportunities and unexpected solutions.This guest edited issue of Somatechnics: Journal of Bodies -Technologies -Power, titled 'The Somatechnics of Critical Design', reflects on, and contributes to, the critical and creative study of design. In my reading, the issue, edited by theorist Stacey Moran, associate director of the Center for Philosophical Technologies and co-director of the programme 'Design + Society in the Netherlands', both at Arizona State University, contributes to the tradition of academic engagement