Social Diagnosis, Forecasting, and Design

The Dialogical Essence of the Concept of Social Design

A significant hallmark of our time is the emergence of projects aimed at transforming the environment, climate, urban planning, automation of management systems, and the creation of global information and communication networks. The project activities in the realm of genetic engineering, the construction of life forms, and even human beings have become subjects of intense debate. Within the scientific and technical sphere, the sociotechnical, applied, and project aspects increasingly overshadow fundamental academic pursuits, leading certain philosophical and scientific movements to equate scientific and project activities—most notably in radical constructivism and the systems-thinking activity methodology. In the purely spiritual and cultural domain, various concepts, theoretical approaches, or cultural-spiritual traditions are increasingly viewed as particular forms of design, programming the individual and society, along with their values and spiritual aspirations.

It seems that the projectification of diverse areas of contemporary social life is not merely a reflection of a passing trend or the dynamic, constructive spirit of the modern age, but is underpinned by deeper motivations. Ultimately, it arises from the urgent need to elevate the culture of an active and engaged human relationship with their surrounding reality and self, as well as the pressing necessity to align society with the global challenges of the present, whose resolution determines its future. In an era characterized by nuclear energy and globalization, the cost of spontaneous development proves to be exceedingly high, often resulting in technological disasters, wars, and prolonged social, economic, and political crises.

In domestic society, interest in design is further dictated by the inadequacy of the foundational basis for making state-political decisions, programming, and planning societal development. There is also a palpable underdevelopment of the project component within the self-organization of civic life, characterized by a low level of public knowledge and skills concerning the definition of strategic and tactically significant socio-political tasks, as well as the construction of means to address them.

In light of the above, it is unsurprising that there has been a renewed scholarly interest in the phenomenon of design, which, since the late 1960s, has been actively explored from various perspectives—primarily within the philosophy of scientific and engineering consciousness, social philosophy, philosophy of history, sociology, political science, and beyond. Nevertheless, the meaning of the term "design" remains a subject of debate, particularly evident in its ambiguous interpretations within leading philosophical-encyclopedic works from the post-Soviet period.

For instance, V.M. Rozin, in the publication "New Philosophical Encyclopedia" (Moscow, 2001), defines design as “one of the primary methods (alongside engineering activity) for creating technology and other products and structures.” From this, traditional, classical design is identified, primarily pertaining to the engineering-technical domain and adhering to several principles (feasibility, constructive integrity, completeness, independence, compliance, and so forth). According to this author, the extension of these standards “to other types of activities is complicated due to the absence or imperfection of scientific knowledge regarding the regularities of the functioning of the relevant objects.” Noting the expansion of design thought beyond engineering-technical boundaries, the Russian philosopher emphasizes that under new conditions, it undergoes significant transformation, acquiring an unconventional, quasi-design status. This perspective aligns with Rozin's later conclusion that social design, as genuine design, does not yet exist; it remains in a state of formation.

The overarching orientation towards the reproduction of “strong,” “true” design as a whole is commendable. One must agree with the “linkage” of the very possibility of design-constructive activity to scientific-theoretical knowledge. In this regard, the presented view on the imperfection of social design is grounded in the genuine lag of social scientific knowledge behind the natural sciences. However, we believe that this distance is exaggerated, and the proposed definition implicitly obstructs the development of social design-thought, leading to notions of objective, essential inferiority, utopianism, and the impracticality of projectively conceptualizing social material. In this light, one is led to conclude that technical sciences, engineering, and architecture possess exclusive rights to design.

Conversely, an exceedingly broad interpretation of the concept of “design” can be found in the "Global Philosophical Encyclopedia" (Moscow—Minsk, 2001), where the author of the corresponding dictionary entry, S.B. Saveleva, defines “design” as an activity understood as the contemplation of what ought to be. Design is characterized by its ideal nature and its orientation towards the creation (or emergence) of something in the future. In the scholar’s view, these characteristics distinguish design from other broad types of humanitarian technologies, such as research.

This definition seems to indicate the most general essential features of design. Yet, at the same time, it is likely insufficiently specific; on the one hand, it fails to distinguish design from the process of creating utopias, while on the other, it does not counter the expansion of radical constructivist identifications of project and theoretical activities, which attempt to excessively broaden the scope of the term “design.” This effectively allows for the equivalence of such qualitatively diverse forms of spiritual activity and their products as myth, religion, utopia, ideal, idea, concept, theory, and more.

The outlined theoretical context accentuates the need for a deeper understanding of the content of the overarching concept of “design,” taking into account the universal dialectical interconnections that exist among various forms of spiritual-constructive engagement with reality. Establishing such connections does not imply dissolving the specificity of project-based exploration of the social and natural. It concerns general principles realized through particular forms and means across different spatial-temporal dimensions of human existence.

The roots of the term “design” trace back to the Latin “projectus,” meaning “thrown forward.” Until at least the mid-20th century, it was predominantly used in the fields of technology, engineering, and architecture to denote a special activity involving the development of calculations, drawings, blueprints, and models of yet non-existent objects (such as buildings, structures, and machines). However, this does not imply that at least some elements of design were not utilized in other spheres of social life. A parallel to this situation can be found in the works of Molière, whose character remained unaware for a long time that he had been speaking prose his entire life. Likewise, regardless of the awareness of this fact, the potential for design exists within the consciousness of every individual and manifests in their productive creative activity in terms of freedom and renewal when the inner self-determination of a person prevails over the determination of external circumstances.

The genetic foundation of design is a unique human capacity for creative goal-setting, which entails the ability to ideate, construct, and bring forth results of one’s activity that have yet to exist. “The spider performs operations reminiscent of a weaver’s, and the bee, in constructing its waxen cells, surpasses certain human architects. Yet, even the most mediocre architect distinguishes himself from the finest bee in that he has already envisioned the cell in his mind before he begins to construct it from wax. At the end of the labor process emerges a result that was already conceived at the beginning of that process, that is, in the ideal form. Humanity not only alters the shape of what nature has provided; in what nature offers, it simultaneously realizes its conscious purpose, which, as a law, determines the manner and nature of its actions and to which it must subordinate its will,” writes Karl Marx.

In this regard, one might even speak of a certain degree of projectiveness and artificiality in the outcomes of this activity: the tools of labor, language, social norms, and culture as a whole, which to varying degrees objectify specific ideal images or prototypes, thereby ensuring the reproduction of humanity as a subject, overcoming the contradictions between its needs and the world, and alleviating the external inertia of matter. However, one should not overstate the projective nature of culture; in reality, we encounter various relationships between the natural and the artificial, the spontaneous and the regulated.

This is primarily due to the fact that even the most refined ideal images of the future possess a certain degree of schematicism, relativity, and inability to encompass the entirety of the manifold and complexity of the real world. Thus, there remains a space in human activity for random, spontaneous, and unpredictable factors that can significantly influence its actual character and outcomes. Furthermore, in practice, we do not have a singular project for the desired future of humankind as a whole, but rather a spontaneous intertwining of interests among individuals, social groups, and society at large, which generates competition and, at times, conflicts of different perspectives on the future, resulting in unforeseen outcomes that diverge from the desires of individual participants in social relationships.

Given this, a rather broad interpretation of the role of projects and projective activities in human existence, as presented by Jean-Paul Sartre in a series of works on philosophical anthropology, raises doubts. The philosopher defines the notion of “projection” as the relation of humanity to future objects, the aspiration to “bring to life that which ’has not yet been’,” the decision to “cast oneself” (French: me pro-jette) into specific actions toward particular goals. In this sense, any human action is a “project of the self toward the possible.”

At the foundation of these views lies a division of consciousness into three blocks. The first block (“being-in-itself”) encompasses the factual circumstances surrounding the emergence of consciousness, which are independent of it and, hence, possess a random character relative to it. The second block of consciousness (“being-for-itself”) serves as the source of humanity’s ability to detach from the present, to remove or “annihilate” the randomness of its factuality through autonomous projection of “what does not exist,” transforming it into a “concrete and singular totality.” As a result of this projective mission, the third block of consciousness, denoted by the concept of “the world as phenomenon,” is born.

In other words, projection, as a whole, is rightly interpreted as a manifestation of the connection between the possible and the actual, the future and the present, and in this form, it is defined as an indispensable condition for the fulfillment and constitution of the integrity of being within the world. Ultimately, according to Sartre’s conception, humanity’s ability to project itself and the world is the foundation of its freedom and responsibility. At the same time, it seems that the presented understanding of the notion of “projection” does not allow for a distinction between it and other forms of goal-setting and ideal processes of creating “that which does not exist” (for instance, fantasy). In our view, this deficiency is symptomatic, arising from an overemphasis on the projective autonomy of “being-for-itself.” Sartre essentially excludes the “factual circumstances” and, consequently, the laws that emerge from them from the content of the source of human freedom. Moreover, the constructive freedom of consciousness is not limitless; there exist objective laws that define the realm of realization, within which creative thought can devolve into mere fantasy. “Since the ’anti-human’ elements and dependencies in Sartre’s perception are precisely the objective-material components in the structure of historical action, no objective guidelines or points of reference remain for the individual to project themselves, leaving the internal organization of living labor suspended in the air,” notes M. Mamardashvili.

One potential danger of the existentialist absolutization of the role of humanity's projective-constructive potential lies in the neglect of spontaneous, and ultimately objective, forms of realization of natural-historical laws. Meanwhile, the projective, goal-directed activities of humanity exist in dialectical unity with spontaneous “non-projective” activity, and thus, the projective removal of disintegrative factors of natural and social spontaneity has certain limits; crossing these limits leads to the distortion of projection. This occurs due to the inevitable specific-historical limitations of projective-constructive models, which are unable to encompass the entirety of the real life’s manifold. Hence, projective maximalism, which seeks to entirely eradicate the spontaneous shoots of natural and social self-organization, makes society a hostage to artificial and unviable schemes that are not filled with the actual processuality of natural and socio-historical phenomena. As such, it proves to be utopian and can direct the energy of humanity and society into channels of unconstructive, socially dangerous actions.

All this indicates the necessity for a clearer identification of the profound foundation of the unity of the projective and the spontaneous, the artificial and the natural in social existence. Ultimately, a person seeking to comprehend the world (rather than rapaciously appropriating something) must orient themselves toward reciprocity, toward understanding its natural laws, and toward a dialogue with nature’s “inner voice.” The formation of these skills, of course, could not occur instantaneously, but was marked by duration and contradiction. Thus, the internal projective potentials of the goal-setting procedure were realized not immediately and without reason but over many epochs through the differentiation and qualitative development of ideal forms that reflect objective reality.

The specificity of the ideal lies in constructing in the human mind images of particular objects according to its needs, interests, and values. The content of these images is determined by practical human activity, and simultaneously, they exert a reciprocal determining influence on practice. The contradictory interaction that arises between these images and the practice of their realization serves as a source of human self-development and its capacity to set and achieve established goals.

At the dawn of historical development, goal-setting was in an almost indistinguishable, syncretic unity with practical activity. The material from which ideal images of possible forms of social organization or means of labor were constructed primarily stemmed from practical, pre-scientific experience. Through the application of the trial-and-error method, through prolonged historical validation of feasibility (thus, in essence, these objective laws were spiritually and practically assimilated), the ideal images were refined and took on the character of prototypes, sanctified by mythical-religious explanations, which then transformed into canons—conventional, traditional models, norms of creative-constructive exploration in a particular sphere of activity. However, over time, the construction of ideal images of desired outcomes of activity gradually began to “liberate” itself from the “dictate” of material-practical conditions. This process extended over millennia and fundamentally expressed the emergence of human subjectivity.

In the early stages of goal-setting, there resided significant potential for constructive or productive imagination, that is, the capacity to create an idealized artificial world that employs the materials provided by the natural-historical environment while simultaneously transcending it. The first manifestation of this ability was the creation of fantastical mythical images. However, gradually, humanity began to forge realizable ideal constructions that astonishingly broke through the horizons of existing space and time, transcending the boundaries of practical and spiritual experience. Ancient geometric drawings, mathematical calculations, astronomical observations, knowledge of anatomy, and religious-philosophical reflections were actualized in monumental architectural structures, expansive agro-technical systems, remarkable works of art and thought, intricate state-military organizations, and refined legal techniques, all of which still evoke wonder at the level of projective-constructive imagination possessed by architects who lived thousands of years ago.

The foundation of these achievements lies in the emergence within humans of the ability to constructively and theoretically organize their cognitive activities, aimed at solving specific practical problems. This characteristic indicates a close interrelationship between design and theoretical activities. The emergence and development of the latter serves as a precondition for distinguishing design from practice as a relatively autonomous variant of ideal-constructive activity. The crux of the matter is that theoretical and design knowledge share a common genetic root, ultimately growing from an idea that possesses a dual theoretical-design nature. This understanding aligns with the perspective of P.V. Kopnin, who defined the idea as a form of “reflection of the external world, encompassing the awareness of purpose and the prospect of its further cognition and practical transformation.”

This suggests that, in a certain sense, the conceptual schema of justification, explanation, understanding, and interpretation of an idea can be viewed as a special project for a system of theoretical knowledge. However, it is important to emphasize that this coincidence is not complete, and the concepts of design and theoretical activity are not synonymous, denoting distinct forms of spiritual engagement with the world. Design emerges as a form of rational-constructive organization of theoretical knowledge with the goal of solving specific practical problems, while the primary aim of theoretical activity is to comprehend the regularities of reality’s development, employing the projective experience of verifying various cognitive-academic conclusions. “If a scientific theory is a universal form of theoretical engagement with the world, then a project is a universal form of its construction,” rightly notes S.B. Krymsky.

This thesis is confirmed by the fact that, in reality, the structure of design is not exhausted solely by the conceptual level. Beyond the development of the concept of an artifact (artificial object) as a means of resolving a problematic situation, it also possesses a perceptual level, wherein specific means of actualizing this concept are objectified based on the synthesis of theoretical and practical experiences. In the absence of the necessary ideal-constructive means and skills for realizing the conceptual scheme, a rethinking of it occurs, a procedure that typically has a repetitive (iterative) nature.

In this capacity, design manifests as a form of reproducing the unity of theory and practice, ensuring their numerous transitions. In light of this, the identification of the concepts of “theoretical activity” and “design” may lead to the disruption of the dialectical unity of theory and practice. We observe this in the example of the philosophical-scientific concept of radical constructivism, which garnered significant academic resonance in Western countries during the 1980s and transformed into the methodological foundation for many scientific fields: in biology, the works of U. Maturana and F. Varela; in cybernetics, those of H. von Foerster and E. von Glasersfeld; in neurophysiology, G. Roth; in psychology and psychiatry, P. Watzlawick; and in sociology, N. Luhmann and P. Berger.

The essence of this current lies in the analogy between life and cognition, asserting the construction of objective reality in the process of thought, attempting to regard theoretical activity as a kind of design, the construction of objects of scientific inquiry. The positive aspect of such views primarily underscores the activity of the subject in cognitive endeavors, which does not merely mechanically reproduce objective reality but demonstrates the capacity for creatively-organizing the exploration of the world and oneself. However, in extreme manifestations, this viewpoint tends to be absolutized while simultaneously neglecting the internal, will-independent activity of the surrounding reality.

This is particularly evident in the notion that the primary products of theoretical work are recognized not as knowledge but as projects, constructions, norms, and prescriptions, the criterion for which is their feasibility. At the same time, the conditions for this feasibility remain undisclosed; thus, the process of theorizing-designing is presented as an arbitrary transformation of a passive object. However, “the subject, with certain settings and constructs of consciousness, constructs the surrounding social world not randomly but ’hits the keys of the possible’,” writes E.N. Knyazeva. In other words, the theoretical reflection of the objective regular connections of a fragment of reality is a condition for the feasibility of projective forms of its transformation, revealing the limits of projective-constructive creativity, beyond which it becomes utopian.

Thus, theoretical knowledge, while not coinciding with specific design images, points to the general boundaries of possible design space. Alongside this, design activity, as a form of practical testing of theoretical knowledge, contributes to establishing the measure of its truthfulness, its adequacy to reality. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish design from forecasting, as the latter has a purely cognitive-theoretical orientation towards uncovering the entire spectrum of possible regular tendencies in the development of a phenomenon and, in this role, is characterized by a predominant focus on mastering time as all possible sequences of events in real life. In this capacity, forecasting serves as the theoretical foundation for design as the ideal creation of a certain integral object. In this process, the diversity of temporal sequences is resolved within the framework of the projective-constructive mastery of only one spatio-temporal alternative for the development of objective events and processes, the most desirable and feasible concerning the needs, interests, values of the designer, and the available resources. Thus, the nature of anticipatory reflection in the process of design bears a constructive, so to speak, “secondary” character. Although, of course, in practice, these various forms of spiritual engagement with the future can be extremely closely intertwined, for example, in the case of implementing the strategy of “normative forecasting.”

In any case, the level of theoretical-forecasting understanding of a specific aspect of the relationship between “human — world” significantly influences the diagnostic potential of the designer, their ability to establish their object—a problematic situation within certain coordinates of space and time—and accordingly to construct specific-historical means for its resolution. The higher the level of theoretical-forecasting knowledge, the clearer the particular problem is perceived, and the greater the plurality and diversity of potential paths for its projective resolution. Thus, the achievements of the natural sciences in establishing the regularities of nature significantly expand the space of engineering-technical design, forming the basis for its clear and distinct constitution as a relatively autonomous variety of activity. Meanwhile, the more modest achievements of the social sciences, along with the characteristics of the object of projective understanding of social transformations (reflexivity, dual subject-object nature, variability, etc.), lead to rather narrow horizons of social design and often to its almost syncretic connection with practice.

Besides the theoretical aspect, the process of determining the object of design is influenced by a complex of material-production, socio-political, and worldview-spiritual factors. During the awareness of the problematic situation that needs resolution, material-production factors hold primary significance, among which the need for liberating humanity from the power of natural and social forces plays a leading role. In the process of satisfying this need, the materialization and objectification of ideal constructions occur, both in certain artifacts (of economic, social, political, and spiritual significance) and in the means of realizing the very projective-constructive thinking. While the former affect design indirectly, manifesting in the designer's consciousness as prototypes, the latter appear as a direct form of design. For instance, during the ancient Egyptian period, the need to build irrigation structures, organize agricultural work, and determine land area led to the emergence of geometry and the corresponding material-technical means for solving geometric problems: rulers, compasses, and so forth.

The leap in the development of the forms of objectification concerning the means of executing projective-constructive thought was intrinsically linked to the invention of writing, and subsequently to that of paper and printing. This evolution established an appropriate material space for the differentiation of design from practice, allowing it to emerge as a relatively autonomous variety of activity focused on creating various ideal models, articulated through a specialized sign system—verbal descriptions, drawings, blueprints, mathematical calculations, and the like. Such advancements fortified the intertemporal connections in the development of human thought, laying the groundwork for the emergence of an immeasurable intertemporal galaxy of the human spirit. Ultimately, the progressive evolution of the perceptual level of the design mechanism and advancements in the techniques of sign fixation of constructive images and models birthed new possibilities for the development of constructive thinking, transforming it into a relatively independent form of activity.

Another significant event in the establishment and evolution of design in its diverse forms was the scientific and technological revolution, during which the share of scientific and informational activity within the structure of material production gradually became predominant, and the need for design—as a means of bridging theory and practice—became increasingly palpable. Furthermore, the advancement of information and cybernetic technologies has precipitated a progressive automation of design systems, the incorporation of artificial intelligence into the design process, and even the emergence of a potential threat of entirely displacing human intellect from the contemplation and construction of desired and feasible models of the future.

Turning to the socio-political factors, it is evident that they play a crucial role, primarily in constituting a social mandate to address specific problems, thereby organizing and directing design thought. The regime of state governance and the level of education and competence among the political elite significantly influence the thematic content of design. In particular, authoritarianism is generally characterized by a narrowing of the design space, due to restrictions on freedom of thought and speech (including in the selection of design topics and access to information), and the stringent persecution of those who violate established “boundaries.” At times, this capacity to concentrate all available design potential of society in one direction can lead to the creation and realization of remarkable projects (as exemplified by the space and military-industrial achievements of the USSR). Simultaneously, the authoritarian model of prioritization constrains free thought and can result in tragic miscalculations and errors that not only hinder progress but can also regress the nation (as evidenced by the Soviet leadership's underestimation of the social significance of developing genetic, cybernetic, and computer technologies). These deficiencies are less characteristic of a democratic regime, which, by ensuring greater creative freedom and guaranteeing the right to information, seems to promote the expansion of the design space. At the same time, it also necessitates a corresponding increase in the risks of alienating design from the realization of socially significant goals.

The way an object of design is reflected is decisively influenced by the worldview attitudes, perceptions of time, values, and socio-cultural norms of a particular historical epoch. Thus, one of the reasons for the relatively scattered, singular nature of design in ancient times was the dominance of fatalistic and passive sentiments, manifesting in mythical and religious notions of the divine predetermination of this world and the cyclical structure of social time. These were conditioned by a relatively low level of development of the means of labor, and thus an almost indivisible unity between humanity and nature, subjugated to natural spatial-temporal rhythms, which in turn contributed to the conservation of existing, traditional forms of existence. “The project of society as a sacred 'heavenly city' was canonized, and the world was not subject to transformation either as a whole or in detail,” notes V.F. Sydorenko, characterizing the Medieval period.

Revolutionary changes in the mode of material production and, correspondingly, in the worldview orientation of humanity began to manifest during the Renaissance, when linear perceptions of time proliferated, projective-transformative attitudes became dominant, and the ideal of the human as a titan, as a creator who has the right and obligation to improve nature, society, and oneself, was recognized as the leading value. Perhaps the pinnacle of human projective orientation occurred in the 20th century. During this period, propelled by the transformation of science into a productive force, grand projects were realized across all leading spheres of life. Some proved successful (notably in the scientific and technological realm), while others resulted in significant ecological disasters and social upheavals. While the former stimulated optimistic designs, the latter led to disillusionment and skepticism regarding humanity's capacity to shape the future. In any case, in contemporary society, design is both a mass and professional endeavor, and the current culture increasingly justifiably begins to be referred to as “project-based,” crafting a distinct space for design.

The most important components of this space are the results of design activity—namely, projects, which are semiotically formulated ideal models of the functioning of yet non-existent artificial objects (project as model) and/or a set of prescriptions for the realization of these models under the specific historical conditions of a given era (project as prescription). They embody, in a holistic manner, the properties that enable the differentiation of design from other forms of spiritually-constructive mastery of reality.

Primarily, this concerns the alignment of design activity with the objective laws of the fragment of reality that is envisioned for transformation. Ultimately, the material realization of a project cannot occur in defiance of the laws of nature. Conversely, while developing an ideal model of a specific object, the designer seeks to discover and realize the conditions necessary for reproducing its unity with the first and second nature, enabling the fulfillment of natural, lawful possibilities in accordance with the needs and interests of a particular social subject. In this regard, the well-known saying of F. Bacon comes to mind—“Nature can only be commanded by obeying her.”

The second essential property of the design concept is its feasibility within a specific space. This substantial aspect of design is also evident in that it unfolds within a semiotic, sign-based realm, distinct from material production, thereby facilitating the division of labor between the designer and the project executor, with design itself being implemented as a form of preliminary testing of various concepts and mitigating potential risks in their future practical realization.

Closely associated with this is the necessity to ensure the constructive integrity of the project, meaning its adequacy to the technological capabilities of society concerning the production of all constructive elements of the designed model of the artificial object. In other words, through constructive integrity, a lawful connection is realized between the demands and needs of the designer and the actual possibilities of satisfying them.

An obligatory characteristic of design is also that it entails the creation of functionally cohesive models, wherein each desired and feasible function corresponds to a specific morphological and constructive unit of the designed object. This characteristic is specified by the requirement to ensure the optimality of the functional structure, maximizing the effectiveness of the construction while eliminating “superfluous,” non-functional elements. Collectively, all these properties comprise a completed project that satisfies the primary requirements set forth by the specific client, culture, and society at large.

It is essential to pause and consider that the proposed model exhibits a certain degree of novelty in its intrinsic unity of relativity and absoluteness, potentiality and actuality. The very measure of novelty in the project possesses a dynamic nature, altering its content from one epoch to another. In ancient historical periods, design predominantly adhered to traditional prototypes, which bore a novel character relative to specific fragments of social space and time, yet had already been validated in the resolution of similar issues across different spatiotemporal contexts of human existence. Moreover, these prototypes often emerged spontaneously, as a result of multiple generations of humans employing the method of "trial and error." It was indeed this practice of spontaneous validation that created the initial groundwork upon which the attributes of project conception for new objects could be realized for an extended period—attributes such as relevance, constructive and functional integrity, completeness, and feasibility. In this way, the designer could obtain the necessary, comprehensive knowledge regarding the structure, design, and functions of the projected object, which, at that moment, did not yet exist in reality.

Of course, in this scenario, project reproduction of prototypes could not occur without the creative modeling of entirely new elements required to address the individual tasks of specific social subjects under particular life circumstances. Established and traditional models could not encompass the full dynamic variety of life, necessitating some degree of adjustment or "fitting" to the specific conditions of social space and time for their practical application. Thus, the individual innovations accumulated in this manner gradually defined the natural-historical evolution of established and traditional prototypes, which initially progressed at a painfully slow pace. However, over time, the increasing number of artificial breakthroughs in tradition transformed into a new quality of societal development, where historical and project-constructive creation of the new began to prevail over purely natural spontaneous forms of transition from potentiality to actuality in human existence.

This marked tendency becomes particularly pronounced beginning in the mid-20th century, when, under conditions of extraordinary acceleration in social development, individuals increasingly face the problem of a lack of prototypical models for addressing various issues. On this basis, certain authors have long contrasted "traditional design" of past epochs with the modern "new design without prototypes." However, even in this case, the absoluteness of the project priority possesses certain limits, the violation of which is linked to the dangers of dismantling the organic natural connection between social spaces and times. This manifests in the alienation of design from specific historical needs, interests, and values of social subjects, leading to the neglect of a crucial characteristic of design: the completeness of fulfilling the needs of individual social subjects and society as a whole.

The outlined internal content of design manifests itself in several functions:

1. Epistemological, as a method of project-constructive knowledge of reality, enriching theory with knowledge of specific pathways for considering the actions of various objective regularities;
2. Ontological, as a form of objectification of a certain ideal image and its social existence;
3. Axiological, as an act of choosing and realizing value orientations, and the ideal of humanity as a creator;
4. Communicative, as a means of exchanging project information in social time and space;
5. Ideological, as a tool for forming the practical consciousness of individuals, enriching it with ideas and concepts of theoretical knowledge;
6. Managerial, as a form of distribution and coordination of social labor for producing a particular artificial object;
7. Normative, as a means of normalizing social life and creating a prototypical ideal foundation for the repetitive reproduction of artificial objects;
8. Innovative, as a form of creating new constructive means for actualizing desirable and feasible possibilities for the functioning and development of individuals and society;
9. Experimental, as a means of preliminary conceptual testing of the feasibility of a new artificial object against the needs, interests, and values of social subjects and society as a whole.

As a result of this analysis, it is possible to delineate several significant characteristics that constitute the essence of the generic concept of "design":

• It serves as a form of creative goal-setting, as the ideal construction of yet non-existent artificial objects;
• It represents a constructive-theoretical organization of non-linear (multi-variant) and iterative (repetitive) cognitive activity of the designer;
• Its object is a defined problem situation in space and time, the resolution of which corresponds to the needs, interests, and values of a specific social subject;
• It is realized on the foundation of theoretical knowledge (primarily, objective regular relationships of a specific fragment of reality) and practical experience, expressed in a specific sign form;
• Its results yield desired, feasible, constructively and functionally integral projects in the form of ideal models of artificial objects and prescriptions for their practical realization under specific historical conditions.

From this, we define "design" as a creative, goal-oriented cognitive activity that constructs completed, feasible, constructively and functionally integral ideal models of new artificial objects and prescriptions for their implementation under the specific historical conditions of a defined time and space, based on the synthesis of theoretical knowledge and practical experience in accordance with the needs, interests, and values of a particular social subject.

The formulated definition distinguishes "design" from closely related concepts such as "planning" and "programming." Like design, they represent methods of goal-setting for the transformation of specific segments of objective reality, yet each possesses its own focus on the organization of activities aimed at implementing a comprehensive project model. Thus, design serves as a unique launching pad concerning programming and planning, from which, firstly, specific algorithms for project implementation are established; and secondly, existing resources for executing the project are allocated across particular segments of time and space.

Building upon this foundation, let us explore the distinctive features of the concept of "social design."

First and foremost, it is essential to note that, in a broad sense, all varieties of design, aimed at both the exploration of natural phenomena and the transformation of social relations, are social in nature. After all, project activities in all their manifestations ensure the fullest constitution of the individual as a subject capable of purposefully engaging with the surrounding world, thereby facilitating its socialization and cultural enrichment. Furthermore, we should acknowledge that in reality, social relations in any sphere and dimension function and evolve in unity with the operation and development of historically specific means of social labor.

Consequently, the constructive decisions made during the project-based contemplation of forms for establishing social relations, consciously or unconsciously, influence the development of productive forces and the character of the restoration of metabolic equilibrium between humanity and nature. Conversely, the implementation of various purely material-technical projects invariably correlates with diverse social consequences. In this light, the expansion of the directed influence on both natural and social relations is tied to the necessity of restoring the unity of social and material-technical design, ensuring their complexity and comprehensiveness.

The objective necessity of integrating various types of design to address the overarching task of ensuring social progress within society explains the emergence of "broad" definitions of social design. For example, V. A. Lukov defines this concept as "the construction by an individual, group, or organization of actions aimed at achieving a socially significant goal, localized in terms of place, time, and resources." At the same time, it remains pertinent to clarify the specificity of social design in a narrower sense, as a distinct activity focused on developing desirable and feasible models of social relations. This, in turn, enriches project activities as a whole, granting new impetus for a more concrete and effective engagement with the complex social reality.

The specificity of purely social design is determined by the unique nature of its object—social relations—characterized by their definiteness in time and space, as well as the problematic nature of their functioning or development concerning the dissatisfaction of certain needs, interests, and values of social subjects. In this light, the objects of social design may encompass social relations of various scales and dimensions: those of social organisms as a whole, individual spheres, and institutions of societal life (political, economic, organizational, managerial, cultural, and spiritual).

The most significant distinctive feature of social relations lies in their dual, reflexive nature: while existing objectively, they are realized solely through the active, purposeful actions of their participants—individual and collective social subjects. Thus, whereas engineering and technical design is founded on a subject-object relationship, the design of various models of social relations is based on a subject-object-subject relationship. The latter unfolds both in a synchronous context, as the interrelation between the designer and their contemporaries, and in a diachronic one, as the connection between the designer and past and future generations.

Therefore, despite the fact that social projects always have concrete individual initiators, authors, and developers, they cannot be reduced solely to the results of the spiritual labor of particular personalities. In a profound sense, social design is a product of the synthesis of individual, group, and societal subjectivity, wherein the individual, group, and society alternately function as subjects or objects of purposeful project efforts. Hence, the immediate driving force of social design—the creative individual—during their process of formation and socialization, fundamentally acts as an object of collective and societal influence, assimilating the collective experience of contemporary and past generations, as well as the norms, values, and archetypes of the dominant culture. However, as the individual's social subjectivity strengthens, they gain the capacity to assert "their word in history" through the realization of their individuality and group distinctiveness.

In turn, the strength of individuality, the power inherent in its social-design potential, is determined by its alignment with the socially significant needs, interests, and values of the societal organism as a whole. Without this alignment, the mobilization of the collective will of the participants in social relations becomes impossible, and consequently, the envisaged model of social transformation loses its projective properties: its adequacy to objective regularities, constructive and functional integrity, completeness, and ultimately, its feasibility. In this respect, V. L. Glazichev's perspective holds some validity; he argues that social design is "social not because a particular community is the object, but because it must be executed by the community itself, in relation to which a certain professional (social designer) acts as a motivating, analytical, and formalizing force, akin to an 'embodied means of the community's self-realization.'"

Simultaneously, the convergence of individual and collective subjectivity within the designer should not be absolutized, thereby excluding the possibility of regarding the totality of social subjects as objects. Ultimately, removing the concept of "object" from the content of social design—and thereby reducing this activity solely to subject-subject communicative interaction—threatens to obscure the individual and collective subjects responsible for their project initiatives and actions. Instead, this opens the door to the theoretical legitimization of transferring responsibility to an anonymous social whole, the will of which is ostensibly realized by a specific leader or social "engineer."

Based on the preceding discourse, one can assert that the qualitative substantial foundation of social design consists of a directed process of ideal construction of models aimed at restoring parity in the social relationship of "subject — object — subject." In this regard, social-project activity can be regarded as a unique dialogue between the social subject and society, the progressive unfolding of which embodies the attainment of social consensus. Here, specific phases of this process reflect the degree of mutual correspondence between the interests of the social subject of design, the inherent nature of its object, and the interests of other social subjects.

Adhering to this substantial imperative of dialogicality allows for the realization of the essential purpose of design within the sphere of social relations, supported by a theoretically substantiated, professionally refined articulation of general social goals and comprehensive construction of means to achieve them. Moreover, it facilitates the execution of other design functions—legitimating the chosen form of social activity and the organization of social relations, forming an ideology for its practical realization, and mobilizing the collective will of society to achieve specific, socially significant goals, among others.

Let us underscore that employing the imagery of dialogue to capture the essence of social design does not imply the complete exclusion of monological thinking from the social design and construction process by individual social agents. "The external framework of dialogical relations is mediated by the internal framework of actions of the subject, which simultaneously manifests as its monologue," notes Yu. M. Shilkov. The monologue expresses the subject's agency, its capacity to enact its own objective concerning a particular object. However, when monological projective activity arises from subordination to a general dialogical orientation towards another subject—who is always present in relation to some social-political object—it disrupts the foundational "subject-object-subject" unity. This signifies a destruction of the essential basis of social design, posing a threat of alienation in this activity and its distortion into various antisocial forms of human constructive activity—technologies for producing ideologems and mythologems, whose aim is the manipulative "doubling" of reality in the self-serving interests of specific social groups or individuals.

The internal dialogical nature of social design transforms the general properties of project activity as a generic phenomenon. First and foremost, it alters the forms ensuring the adequacy of social design to the objective laws of functioning and the development of the specific fragment of social reality being transformed. For successful realization of their intentions, the social designer must consider the particular reflexive character of the mechanisms of their implementation and, consequently, the pronounced polyvariance of socio-historical processes, their extraordinary volatility, which, in the course of social progress, diversification of social structure, and the autonomization of the individual, are constantly accelerating.

In light of this, a significant feature of social design is its high degree of openness to the procedural nature of social reality, which borders on the extent of maintaining the constructive and functional integrity of the developed model. This involves a delicately nuanced effort, wherein the analytical definition of general typological frameworks for reproducing or preserving a particular quality of a social phenomenon must be supplemented by an individualizing approach aimed at leaving ample space for the free self-realization of socially significant individual and group potentials of social agents. In other words, a crucial characteristic of social design is the construction of "airspace" for certain elements of the model transforming social relations; without this, the integrity and completeness of the designed model become questionable and fall into sharp contradiction with the free agency of participants in social relations.

It is important to add that an impressive arsenal of specialized constructive tools has been accumulated along this path. Conceptually, we observe a substantial progression from the closed constructs of mythology and religion to the openness of philosophical-theoretical thought, the latest achievement of which is the affirmation of non-classical nonlinear rationality oriented towards finding mechanisms for regulating and self-regulating material and social systems. In the signified embodiment of project intentions and their translation into the realm of perception, a distinctive feature of social design is that, unlike engineering-technical design, it is marked by a significantly less formalized language. This circumstance is not incidental, as despite the danger of distorting the initial intention due to the misinterpretation of the polysemous means of natural languages, they simultaneously meet the need to maintain the openness of the designed model, ensuring the mobility and flexibility of its components in response to changing social circumstances.

Alongside this, it is necessary to ensure a certain degree of stability in the social project, its ability to fulfill organizational, managerial, and normative functions. In this regard, albeit to a lesser extent, a degree of formalization of linguistic means is also required in social design. This corresponding progression has occurred in conjunction with the development of social science theory and the achievements of normative (primarily legal) techniques. At a certain stage, the language of social design differentiated into the language of philosophy and social science (sociology, political science, legal studies, etc.) and the language of practitioner-managers (politicians, lawyers, administrators), who are the direct organizers of the execution of various social projects. The theoretical language is utilized in the process of developing the conceptual framework for transformation, and then it transforms into the language of normative documents—laws, instructions, statutes, programs, and plans—requiring a high degree of specificity and precision for their regulatory mission.

Despite all this, even at the normative level, the completeness of social design manifests in its capacity to ensure a constructive measure of openness of the developed normative templates to the reflexive procedurality of social relations. One might cite the phenomenon of the "Italian strike" or "obstruction" as an example—singular forms of protest characterized by the employees' adherence to their official duties and rules, leading to the disruption of the normal functioning of the organization, which, as practice shows, cannot operate adequately under all previously established norms, since these invariably lag behind the dynamics of the surrounding environment and fail to encompass the full variety of forms and content of social relations. Hence arises the necessity to ensure the openness of the normative forms of social projects through the development of specialized organizational infrastructure and hermeneutic tools for interpreting the social-design intention.

Moreover, it follows from the foregoing that social design is characterized by a much less clear division of labor between the project developer and its executor. Unlike engineering-technical activities, the latter, due to the inherently open nature of the designed model of social relations, is actively involved in the advocacy of the project, realizing an individual approach to it, thus ensuring its completeness and feasibility. This creates a very close connection between social project activity and practice, which leads some researchers to question the legitimacy of considering social design as a relatively autonomous variety of activity or at least to agree on its quasi-project or non-traditional nature.

In our view, the accentuated open nature of social design does not negate the constructive and functional integrity of the models of social relations developed during its course. It merely acquires a qualitatively different direction—distinct from engineering-technical design—that is clearly expressed in the intention to construct the holistic set of conditions necessary to ensure a purposeful constructive dialogue within a specific historical time and space, while avoiding its distortion into a spontaneous-chaotic collision of individual and group interests. It is precisely in this understanding that a person can ensure the holistic constitution of themselves as a social subject, as they gain the capacity to provide an autonomous completeness to their existence not only in the natural but also in the social world.

The exposition leads to the conclusion that, in addition to the aforementioned general functions, social design fulfills several distinct functions:

1. An integrative function, serving as a means to ensure the orderly arrangement of a specific segment of social reality by uniting diverse social subjects and society as a whole around a socially significant model for the preservation or transformation of a particular set of social relations;
2. A reflexive function, which embodies the constructive self-understanding of the social subject and its place within societal relations;
3. A self-regulatory function, as a component of the mechanism of self-regulation for social organisms, facilitating their self-adaptation and self-transformation in response to challenges posed by the external environment.

Moreover, we can delineate specific characteristics of the concept of "social design":

1. The object of inquiry consists of a set of social relations characterized by determinacy in time and space, problematics of functioning or development due to the dissatisfaction of certain needs, interests, and values of social subjects;
2. It is marked by a substantive orientation toward the ideal construction of models for restoring parity in the social relations of “subject — object — subject”;
3. It manifests in the constructive creation of a dynamically dialogical model of social relations, as a measure of the socially beneficial freedom of self-realization for participants in these relations;
4. Its outcome comprises constructively and functionally integral models of the functioning or development of social relations, open to the processuality of social change;
5. In the process of perceptually framing the constructive model of functioning or development of the social relations set, specific semiotic tools with a low degree of formalization are employed;
6. Special organizational-hermeneutic means are widely used to preserve the openness of the normative framing of the model for the functioning or development of the social relations set.

Synthetically integrating all these distinct characteristics, we can define social design as a creative, goal-oriented cognitive activity focused on constructing within a specific semiotic-normative sphere that is open to ordered and substantiated interpretations. This activity culminates in the formulation of completed, feasible, dynamically dialogical, constructively and functionally integral ideal models of new forms of reproducing a parity regime of functioning or development for a specific set of social relations under concrete-historical conditions of defined space and time, based on the synthesis of theoretical knowledge and practical experience in accordance with the needs, interests, and values of a particular social subject.

It is noteworthy that the establishment and development of social design, in all its full generic and specific features, represented a prolonged and internally contradictory process that remains incomplete even today. In ancient epochs, the restoration of the dialogical substantiality of social goal-setting predominantly relied on the spontaneously traditional establishment of feedback between individual social subjects and society as a whole. Primarily, this pertains to the spontaneous mass practice of social actions through which the general social subjectivity of society seemingly "encountered" the initiative of a particular social force.

This force could, of course, resort to violence, thereby restricting social freedom, and could secure the realization of any of its designs, at least for a short term. However, for such designs to be actualized and rooted in societal existence as a stable form, voluntarily reproduced by the populace in their daily practical activities, they had to endure historical validation. During this process, various generations, through their spontaneous actions, adjusted the initiated innovation and thus facilitated its refinement, allowing it to align with the inherent holistic processuality of social reality. Ultimately, the conceived innovation transformed into a traditional norm (custom, tradition, law, canon, etc.)—a powerful socially determining force, which, as rightly noted by L. V. Ozadovska, embodies the form of "functioning 'We' in the act of creativity."

The reverse side of the action of this spontaneous mechanism of uniting social subjects and society is its slowness. Functioning in the sluggish, conservative societies of ancient epochs, it increasingly lagged behind the accelerating historical development, struggling against the rising waves of innovation whose social quality the inertial mass of everyday consciousness simply could not keep pace with. At the same time, the spontaneous surge of diverse personal and group interests disrupted the stability of the functioning and development of social relations, a process that inevitably led to a dangerous increase in entropy and a contraction of non-entropy developmental trends within the social system.

In response to this historical challenge, a gradual process unfolded, actualizing the dialogical essence of social design and the conscious creation of integral institutional forms of social dialogue. Notably, some manifestations of this can already be observed during the establishment of the state. For instance, it is known that the reforms of Solon, recognized as the founder of Athenian democracy, were preceded by prolonged reflections and public discussions that involved the Delphic oracles, representatives of the tribal aristocracy (the Eupatridae), and ordinary citizens (the demos). Even in the 7th century BCE, the creation of new socio-political forms did not exclude elements of purposeful collective cognitive activity, which concentrated the thoughts (including critical ones) of many individuals, resolving contradictions among them and fostering the formation of a social will aimed at implementing transformations in the chosen direction. Of course, these elements should not be overestimated, given the extraordinary limitations of ancient democracies, which acknowledged equal rights to participate in political decision-making processes solely for a very narrow ruling group, which thus acted as a collective subject of governance relative to the overwhelming majority of the disenfranchised populace.

In our view, the overcoming of fragmentation and dispersion in the process of actualizing the project-dialogical potential of social goal-setting occurs during the Renaissance and the Early Modern period. In these historical epochs, projects aimed at the political emancipation of humanity began to mature and, to some extent, were realized, founded upon ideas of inviolable equal civil rights (freedom of conscience, thought, and private property), the rule of law as their guardian, popular sovereignty, and others. In this context, the role of project initiators expanded beyond representatives of the state to include various structures of civic self-organization (industrial and financial groups, political parties, civic movements, etc.). The projective and constructive interpretation of issues concerning the transformation of socio-political phenomena evolved into a systematic and branched activity. There emerged a clear division of labor between theorists who engaged in projective reflection at the conceptual level and practitioners—politicians and jurists—who practically implemented theoretical ideas and concepts in the drafting of constitutions, laws, political decisions, and the planning and programming of social development.

Alongside the strengthening of management and project skills, threats of complete "rationalization" of life increased, accompanied by the possibility of uncritical denial of the socially beneficial potential inherent in spontaneous processes of social self-organization. These threats became particularly pronounced in the Modern era during the implementation of projects aimed at the socio-economic emancipation of humanity. While contributing to an increase in the actual social freedom of society and individuals, this new phase of social project development highlighted numerous dangers of state-centric governance, the suppression of individual creative freedom, and, ultimately, a form of authoritarian-dogmatic self-negation.

Today, the intensification of contradictions within social project planning is objectively determined by the complexities and increasing degree of non-linear diversity within contemporary society, coupled with the growing power of centralized state authority. Accordingly, the boundary separating project from utopia and dogma, civil freedom from chaos, and social order from totalitarian-authoritarian caprice becomes increasingly tenuous. Adhering to this boundary is an extremely risky endeavor, as even a seemingly minor deviation may plunge the social organism into the abyss of nonexistence.

Avoiding this peril necessitates a shift in strategy concerning the definition and resolution of issues surrounding the design of socially significant and viable models for the functioning and development of social relations. This must be approached within a democratic-dialogical framework, with the resolution process directed toward finding the optimal balance between the external organizing influence of individual political-state actors on one side and civic self-organization on the other. It is thus about searching for a measure of authority among socio-political actors, compliance with which avoids the establishment of political authoritarianism, and that measure of democratic freedom within society, adherence to which, in turn, prevents its distortion into lawlessness and chaos.

The actual unfolding of the dialogical essence of social project planning, as a patriotic-political initiative by individual socio-political actors, serves as a unique ideological-organizational impulse that mobilizes the patriotic-creative potential of the masses, stimulates the process of establishing and articulating group and societal interests, and provides momentum for the constitution of civil non-state actors capable of directing and adjusting the projective and constructive articulation of progressive social development trends. Given the increasing dynamic complexity of modern society, social project planning—whose leading tasks are understood in this manner—proves to be a prolonged and contradictory process in which adherence to dialogical frameworks becomes an exceedingly delicate operation, requiring all parties involved, particularly reform-minded politicians, to exhibit careful deliberation and unhurriedness, combined with systematic and relentless efforts to understand new needs and the inherent requirements of progressive social development. “Festina lente”—“hasten slowly”—becomes the motto of the renewed social project-transformative movement.