Prague, Present Meets Past

Abstract

In the first, socio-historical part of the study, the main periods of Prague's twentieth century history are described and explained, i.e. the period of Hapsburg monarchy, the period of the interwar Czechoslovak Republic, the Second World War years and Nazi occupation, the 41 years of the communist regime and the years after the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. It was a century of unprecedented discontinuities and the city and its people went through seven different political and economic orders. This kind of history makes legitimate the following question: how were the city and its residents able to retain identity and stability. Different mechanisms were used, e.g. separating culture from politics, inventing civic identity, identity linked to the locality as well as to its history and to the local ways of life, and to stress monument protection. The study hints also at the risks of such defensive mechanisms. The last part tries to exploit the experience of Prague and similar cities for stimulating the interest in urban theory.

Socio-spatial aspects of ageing in an urban context: an example from three Czech Republic cities

“…As a consequence of this selectivity, the participants expressed greater satisfaction with neighbourly relationships. These results demonstrate that there can be advantages to urban life, consisting of the ‘possibility to control the desirable level of social interaction’, as pointed out by Musil (1967: 223) and others.…”

“…Indeed, this analysis suggests the importance of satisfying aesthetic, emotional, symbolic and psychological needs (Carp 1975; Lawton 1978; Phillips et al 2005). In the words of the research participants: ‘colourful houses influence people’, ‘care of an exterior … cultivates the citizens’, appearance helps identification with a place and nourishes a feeling of pride (Musil 1967; Musil et al 1985).…”

Housing Estates in Europe

“…Initial redistribution of apartments aimed at the elimination of class inequality that took place within the existing housing stock, which then stagnated until the early 1960s (Matějů 1980). During the 1950s and 1960s, the socialist regime succeeded, through restrictions on housing construction, in controlling residential mobility, and at least to some extent, population growth in Prague (Matějů et al 1979;Musil 2006). The real housing crisis came soon afterwards, primarily as a result of higher fertility rates and growing immigration to Prague (Matějů et al 1979), but also as a consequence of the restrictive policies described herein.…”

“…However, regarding social status, newer estates were heterogeneous (Matějů et al 1979;Musil 2006). In the first phase of housing estate construction, it was mostly working-class people who came to the newly built areas-more than 75% of them were young working-class households (Musil 1987).…”

Eastern Drama. Capitals of Eastern Europe, 1830S–2006: An Introductory Overview

“…Segregation is money-driven, although in Prague the majority of apartments were still under rent control in 2000. 94 Social exclusion increasingly includes the use of surveillance and forces of violence. The American pattern of guarded, 'gated communities' has spread in post-Communist Europe, most extensively, perhaps, in Budapest's 'residential parks', but reaching even into rather small cities like Tallinn.…”