Socioplastic Urbanism positions itself not as a new masterplan, but as an epistemological rupture—a shift from seeing the city as an object to be planned, towards understanding it as a living, contested process of meaning-making. This move, from “neutral object” to “living system,” explicitly aligns with the critical urban theory of thinkers like Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey, while its methodological heart beats with the pulse of post-1990s relational and socially engaged art. However, to situate it merely within this lineage would be to miss its more provocative, and perhaps more valuable, intervention. Socioplastics does not simply apply artistic methods to the urban scale; it posits that the urban condition itself is an aesthetic condition—one of continuous, often antagonistic, co-production. Its central tenet, that the city is “never finished,” resonates with the open work of Umberto Eco and the institutional critique of artists like Andrea Fraser, who understood systems as inherently unstable and authored by power. Yet, Socioplastics pushes further by refusing the artist or planner as the sole authorial genius. Instead, it frames urban life as a form of diffractive practice, where multiple agencies—human, non-human, material, institutional—continually bend and reshape the social fabric, producing not harmony but a field of tensions. The city, in this view, is less a canvas and more an ongoing performance, its value measured not by its resolution but by its capacity to sustain critical attention and “situated agency” within its unfolding drama.