You joined IPR—or, more precisely, its predecessor—at a time when it was based in the Martinicky Palace. What was it like to work in that environment?

Eva Smutná: Where there are nice people, it’s always a pleasure to work. This institution has literally been a part of my life for as long as I can remember. It was founded in 1961, the year I was born, and I began working there in 1985 on Pařížská Street, when it was still called the Office of the Chief Architect (ÚHA), under Professor Borovička at the time. ÚHA was dissolved in 1994 and renamed the City Development Authority Prague. There was also a transitional period known as SURM (City Development Section of the Prague City Hall). After its renovation between 1967 and 1973, based on a design by architect Zdeněk Hölzel, the Martinicky Palace was stunning, and working there was truly inspiring.

Karel Hák: The Martinicky Palace had immense charm. I used to walk to work from Klárov up the old castle stairs. The building itself was magnificent. We were based there until the restitutions. It was an exceptional environment, even if not always entirely practical.

Jiří Jaroš: Today we’re much more a part of the city. Back then, it was more of a secluded place, somewhat removed from everyday life.

Martin Fejfar: It was elegant, but quite uncomfortable. Small windows, the lights were always on in the halls, and it used to get cold in the winter. Practical matters weren’t ideal either. Dining options were limited, especially when tourists started arriving in the 1990s and restaurant prices shot up quickly. We were given restaurant vouchers, which felt almost like a luxury back then.

Jiří Čtyroký: The turning point came in 2007, when the City Development Authority, led by Bořek Votava, moved from the Martinicky Palace to the Emmaus complex on Vyšehradská Street. That same year, we merged with the defunct Institute of Municipal Informatics of the City of Prague (IMIP), which had been responsible for digital maps. Suddenly, data processing began to develop much more rapidly: the Digital Maps of Prague, a 3D model of the city, and the Geoportal were created. From today’s perspective, it’s amusing to think about how we operated back then. It was still the “stone age”—far from digital. When we moved back then, we basically didn’t work for a week, and nobody would even have noticed—that wouldn’t be possible now.

Marek Zděradička: The year 2007 was a turning point in general. A new Building Act came into effect, introducing new tools for spatial planning, such as Spatial Analytical Documents and Principles of Territorial Development. It was also at that time that the decision was made to develop a new Land Use Plan for Prague. In general, I believe that changes like these—including relocations—are healthy for an institution. They keep it in good shape, forcing it to evolve and preventing it from becoming stagnant.

What projects were planned already in the 1990s and are now under construction?

Marek Zděradička: One of the projects I was involved in from start to finish is the extension of Metro Line A to Motol. As early as the beginning of the millennium, a comparative study was conducted to determine whether a railway or a metro line should lead to the airport. The study favored a railway, but we were then tasked with developing a metro option. Four variants were created, in which I humorously encoded my name—the variants were named ZDER. Variant Z went to Zličín, D to Dědina, E along Evropská Street, and R—which is partially built—went through Ruzyně. No one figured it out at the time. Ultimately, the line was extended from Dejvická to Motol in 2015, adding the stations Bořislavka and Nádraží Veleslavín (i.e., the connection to the airport), Petřiny, and Nemocnice Motol. By Prague standards, that’s actually a pretty fast project. Unlike the railway to the airport, which is still being worked on today.

The tram line to Suchdol is a similar story. We’ve been working on it since 2003; today there are dozens of options, and the project is heading into the EIA process (editor’s note: environmental impact assessment). Construction might begin in a few years. But this is exactly the kind of work where patience is key.

Eva Smutná: Primarily transportation projects. Even back at the Office of the Chief Architect, there were amazing transportation specialists who focused on strategic planning aspects, such as metro routes, ring roads, and tram lines. The discussions about the City Ring Road and the choice of tunnel names—Hana, Dana, and Blanka—were particularly interesting.

Jiří Jaroš: The 1990s were a time of major reevaluation. And not just in transportation. A typical example is the City Ring Road. Originally, it was supposed to run along the edge of Stromovka Park and replace the railway line. When the route was changed to run through the Blanka Tunnel, it made it possible to preserve the connection to Kladno and the airport while also opening up the entire Holešovice-Bubny area for new development. The situation was similar in Smíchov. Diverting the ring road into tunnels freed up large areas that are now being developed. The first urban planning studies were already being conducted there in the 1990s, although the current layout is, of course, different.

Another important topic was the expansion of the metro and tram networks. For example, Line D was essentially already being planned back then in the form in which construction is now beginning. In the 1990s, metro construction was progressing reasonably well, but for a long time, tram line projects failed to materialize. Only recently was the line to Slivenec put into service and the line to Pankrác restored; construction is currently underway toward Malešice, on Wenceslas Square, and across the newly opened Dvorecký Bridge.

Martin Fejfar: Following the change in political regime after 1989, car traffic increased dramatically, and the 1990s were largely a period of searching for a new transport framework. Numerous alternative studies were conducted, often without any public participation, which was virtually nonexistent at the time. When the public did speak up, the response was usually an afterthought.

From the perspective of green infrastructure, however, a whole series of landscape and ecological projects have been successfully implemented over the past decades. Maintenance of Prague’s forests has improved significantly, and streams have been revitalized—for example, the stream in Šárka, the streams in the Čihadla retention basin, several sections of the Rokytka and Říčanka rivers, the stream in Lipence, ponds, and entire sections of the landscape on the outskirts of the city. Several beautiful park revitalization projects have been successfully completed, such as those at Stromovka, Vítkov, Letenské sady, and Petřínské sady. Technical Administration of Roads (TSK) has gradually been adding trees and tree-lined avenues to Prague’s streets. However, this has primarily been a development of the last decade.

Jiří Čtyroký: A major transformation also took place in how planning was made accessible to the public. After the Land Use Plan was completed, it was difficult to get the information out to the public. In 2004, we managed to post the Land Use Plan online; a year later, GeoReport was launched; in 2011, the Geoportal was created; and open data has been available since 2015. Today, it’s taken for granted that the public has access to the same information as officials. Back then, it was a small revolution; at first, we faced mostly criticism. But the trend is unstoppable. Today, no one can imagine planning without it.

Marek Zděradička: I have very fond memories of Adriana Krnáčová. I always joke that she was the last mayor of Prague who had guts. Some things wouldn’t have happened without strong political leadership—for example, the adjustments and crosswalks at Charles Square, which had been under discussion for years. She managed to push them through. Here, the mayor isn’t as strong an executive figure as, say, in Bratislava, which I think is a shame. Even a less wealthy city can then have more energy to actually bring about change. Prague is, in many ways, a well-functioning city, but not always a well-managed one.

What, on the other hand, has still not been completed?

Jiří Jaroš: Shortly after the Velvet Revolution, the issue of calming traffic in the upper part of Wenceslas Square and along the north-south thoroughfare became a major topic of discussion. Initial considerations focused on how to move traffic underground without reducing its capacity. Václav Havel was also interested in the proposals at the time; because of them, he walked with his security guards from the Castle across Hradčany Square to join us at the Martinicky Palace. Gradually, however, the focus shifted toward humanizing the surface, a project that remains unresolved to this day.

Karel Hák: The humanization of the highway is a perennial issue that has spanned my entire professional career. Everyone says they want to make it more pedestrian-friendly, but few realize just how complex the construction actually is and that it has helped relieve traffic in the historic center.

Marek Zděradička: Traditionally, the largest projects are the most problematic. A typical example is Metro Line D. Paradoxically, it was actually more prepared at the time than the extension of Line A, but it lacked strong political support. There was a strong lobby for Line A, while Line D long lacked energy and drive. At the same time, it clearly illustrates the shift in thinking about infrastructure. Today, the metro is not viewed merely as a transportation project, but as a catalyst for development, because the areas around the stations are treated as potential created by public investment. The completion of the Prague Ring Road also remains a major unresolved issue. However, the approach to these large-scale projects has changed in recent years; there is now much more dialogue between the state, the city, and the city districts. Before, we tended to be at odds with one another. This shift is fundamental, even if it’s coming slowly.

Eva Smutná: For me, the unfinished metro line to Václav Havel Airport was—and still is—a disappointment, but that’s politics and its intrigues, which can derail even the best professional plans and goals. We’ve often had to grapple with the fact that expertise and politics don’t always go hand in hand. Unfortunately, a number of projects in Prague were, on the contrary, carried out in violation of our institution’s expert opinion—such as the inappropriate development in Šárka Valley.

Jiří Čtyroký: Strategic documents have long been a weak point. A strategic plan existed, but it remained largely on paper. Politicians claimed to support it, but in reality, they did not act in accordance with it. To a certain extent, it was an academic discipline, detached from the day-to-day functioning of the city. Today, lessons have clearly been learned in this regard. IPR focuses more on specific topics and practical advice where there is genuine interest. There has been a partial shift away from large, all-encompassing strategies in favor of more targeted interventions.

Jiří Jaroš: Housing estates are also a perennial topic. To this day, it is not entirely clear what their long-term prospects are. In the 1990s, there were fears of their rapid decline, which fortunately did not materialize, but the question of their future transformation remains open. Similarly, the idea of covering the railroad tracks near the main train station and developing the area above them keeps resurfacing. As early as the 1990s, a major urban planning and architectural competition was held on this topic, and the issue continues to resurface in various forms to this day.

What was it like to work before the advent of modern technologies, such as digitized data and maps?

Jiří Jaroš: We wrote the texts by hand, and typists would transcribe them. That had one advantage: you really thought carefully about what you were going to write. It worked similarly with drawing. We’d submit different versions, and the drafters would turn them into maps. If something changed, they’d just throw out the tracing paper and start over. Gradually, though, they too learned to work with the first graphics programs, and the transition to digital happened through them.

Marek Zděradička: When I first started, I drew by hand for the first few months. I didn’t even have a computer. I sat at a light table, with cans of crayons on the desk. Each color had its own meaning depending on the functional areas. It was quite a thorough manual process.

Eva Smutná: Everything has its pros and cons. When we got our first T602 text editor at the Martinicky Palace, it was actually great—we didn’t have to stick pieces of paper into the text whenever we wanted to make a change. Back then, the typists had to be able to find a million asterisks and various symbols, and they wrote everything through several sheets of carbon paper. In addition to a desk with a computer, everyone had their own large drafting board, and discussions took place with a pencil in hand over a sheet of paper. I still remember back on Pařížská Street, when the "skyscraper" of the Czech Radio in Pankrác was about to be built, how I prepared its height variations for the committee meeting and had perspective vanishing points in the corners of the office. All of that is long gone now. Back then, we had explored every nook and cranny of Prague and mapped everything out—they were perfect surveys. We drew our first Land Use Plan with crayons. Today’s technologies are captivating in their capabilities and are a great help at work; I just hope there won’t be a blackout. Printed maps and texts still have their place.

Martin Fejfar: There was one computer for several people, and it served as a sort of improved typewriter. It wasn’t until later, when the Land Use Plan was digitized, that we realized one thing: it had been drawn to a scale of 1:10,000, and its accuracy reflected that. In digital form, details suddenly emerged that hadn’t been visible before. That was quite a clash with reality. Today, it’s a completely different story.

Jiří Čtyroký: When I started, GIS (that is, a geographic information system, which is a computer system for collecting, storing, managing, analyzing, and visualizing data linked to spatial location) already existed, but it was still in its infancy. The fundamental shift came when we gradually transitioned from working with images to working with data. In the beginning, the work was very divided: urban planners drew up the concept, drafters precisely traced it onto tracing paper, and GIS specialists then converted it into digital form.The idea that an architect would draw on a computer themselves was unacceptable to most people.That resistance lasted a long time; in fact, it wasn’t until the Metropolitan Plan that things finally changed.

Karel Hák: Communication was much more direct back then. Today there’s more red tape; back then, a lot of things were simply resolved right over the blueprints.

Jiří Jaroš: The challenges have changed, too. Today we’re dealing with climate change and an aging population. In the 1990s, the main focus was on finding our bearings in a new social context. And even though we have technologies today that significantly speed up our work, that doesn’t mean we have more time. We just manage to get more done in the same amount of time.

Jiří Čtyroký: In the past, the public only spoke up when they were protesting something. Today, people are involved in the planning process from the very beginning, which is a huge shift. IPR, CAMP, and the entire participatory system have also played a major role in this. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest and most positive changes.