Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review | DOI: 10.13060/csr.2025.029

Public Green Spaces in Prague Housing Estates: Users’ Views in Comparison to Inner City Data

Zdeněk Uherek ORCID...1, Jan Těšitel ORCID...2, Veronika Beranská ORCID...3, Jaroslav Macháček ORCID...4
1 Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences/Institute of Ethnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague
2 METCENAS, o. p. s., Pilsen
3 Institute of Ethnology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague
4 Prague University of Economics and Business (VŠE), Department of Regional Studies

This article examines public green spaces in housing estates in Central Europe, using Prague as an example. The research leverages a dataset derived from a survey conducted among residents of housing estates in Prague that were built between the 1960s and the 1980s and compares the survey results with data collected in the inner city. This article asks how people who live in Prague conceptualise public space and questions whether they consider public green spaces in housing estates to be public spaces. Based on field data, it interprets how residents of Prague use such spaces, what limitations and shortcomings they see in them, what changes they would make to them and whether they would also be willing to participate in cultivating public green spaces. The research reveals how data gathered from people living in housing estates differ from data on the inner city and other areas. Most such data are quantitative, having been generated via the coding of open-ended questions and interpreted based on observations. Prague serves as an example with which to explore similar issues in other housing estates built in the period from the 1960s through to the 1980s for a wide segment of the population. The findings of this case study are comparable to the situation in other Central European cities, where the real estate prices are rising and residential housing estates continue to provide homes for a socioeconomically diverse population.

Keywords: housing estates, Prague, public spaces, urban green spaces

Received: October 15, 2023; Revised: November 1, 2025; Accepted: November 4, 2025; Prepublished online: December 9, 2025 

Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Amin, A. (2008). Collective culture and urban public space. City, 12(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810801933495 Go to original source...
    2. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Columbia University Press.
    3. Brabec, T., Havlová, Z., Kuna, V., Marianovská, V., Peckelová, H., Smetana, M., & Vojtěch, V. (2022). Spokojenost a kvalita života Pražanů. Výsledky průzkumu obyvatel [Satisfaction and quality of life of Praguers. Results of the survey of residents]. Institut plánování a rozvoje hl. m. Prahy.
    4. Braiterman, J. (2011). City branding through new green spaces. In K. Dinnie (Ed.), City branding (pp. 70-81). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294790_9 Go to original source...
    5. Broulíková, H. M., & Montag, J. (2020). Housing privatisation in transition countries: Institutional features and outcomes. Review of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2020-0003 Go to original source...
    6. Bryant, C. (2021). Prague: Belonging in the modern city. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674258822 Go to original source...
    7. Buckland, M., & Pojani, D. (2022). Green space accessibility in Europe: A comparative study of five major cities. European Planning Studies, 31(1), 146-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2088230 Go to original source...
    8. Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space, part two: Classification. Journal of Urban Design, 15(2), 15-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574801003638111 Go to original source...
    9. Cho, S. H., Poudyal, N. C., & Roberts, R. K. (2008). Spatial analysis of the amenity value of green open space. Ecological Economics, 66(1-2), 403-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.10.012 Go to original source...
    10. Clapham, D., & Kintrea, K. (1996). Analysing housing privatisation. In D. Clapham, J. Hegedüs, K. Kintrea, I. Tosics & H. Kay (Eds.), Housing privatisation in Eastern Europe (pp. 1-13). Greenwood Press.
    11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
    12. Csomós, G., Farkas, J. Z., & Kovács, Z. (2020). Access to urban green spaces and environmental inequality in post-socialist cities. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 69(2), 191-207. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.69.2.7 Go to original source...
    13. Czech Statistical Office. (2021). Results. Census 2021. https://www.czso.cz/csu/scitani2021/results-first
    14. Franck, K., & Stevens, Q. (Eds.). (2006). Loose space: Possibility and diversity in urban life. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203799574. Go to original source...
    15. Francis, M. (1987). Some Different Meanings Attached to a City Park and Community Gardens. Landscape Journal, 6(2), 101-112. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.6.2.101 Go to original source...
    16. Friedrichs, J., Galster, G., & Musterd, S. (2003). Neighbourhood effects on social opportunities: The European and American research and policy context. Housing Studies, 18, 797-806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267303032000156291 Go to original source...
    17. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings. Using public space. Island Press.
    18. Haase, D., Dushkova, D., Haase, A., & Kronenberg, J. (2019). Green infrastructure in post-socialist cities. Evidence and experiences from Eastern Germany, Poland, and Russia. In T. Tuvikene, W. Sgibnev & C. N. Neugebauer (Eds.), Post-socialist urban infrastructures (pp. 105-124). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351190350-7 Go to original source...
    19. Hegedüs, J., Tosics, I., & Mayo, S. K. (1996). Transition of the housing sector in the East-Central European countries. Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies, 8(2), 101-136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-940X.1996.tb00113.x Go to original source...
    20. Holý, L. (1996). The little Czech and the great Czech nation: National identity and the post-communist transformation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621727 Go to original source...
    21. Huai, S., & Van de Voorde, T. (2022). Which environmental features contribute to positive and negative perceptions of urban parks? A cross-cultural comparison using online reviews and natural language processing methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 218(3), 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104307 Go to original source...
    22. Joye, Y., Willems, K., Brengman, M., & Wolf, K. (2010). The effects of urban retail greenery on consumer experience: Reviewing the evidence from a restorative perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(1), 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2009.10.001 Go to original source...
    23. Kallemeyn, L. M., Hall, J. N., & Gates, E. (2020). Exploring the relevance of complexity theory for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(3), 288-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819872423 Go to original source...
    24. Kalm, K., Špačková, P., Sýkora, J., & Špaček, O. (2023). Housing estates' trajectories in post-socialist countries: Similarities and differences of Estonian and Czech cities. Cities, 135, 104209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104209 Go to original source...
    25. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
    26. Karásek, J., & Urbanová, E. (2012). Czech Republic. Energy efficiency increasing in the housing stock. In N. Nieboer, S. Tsenkova, V. Gruis & A. van Hal (Eds.), Energy efficiency in housing management (pp. 176-194). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203121900 Go to original source...
    27. Kilnarová, P., & Wittmann, M. (2017).. Open space between residential buildings as a factor of sustainable development - Case studies in Brno (Czech Republic) and Vienna (Austria). Earth and Environmental Science, 95(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/95/5/052008 Go to original source...
    28. Kirkpatrick, J. B., Daniels, G. D., & Davison, A. (2011). Temporal and spatial variation in garden and street trees in six Eastern Australian cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 101(3), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.029 Go to original source...
    29. Kołat, K., Furmankiewicz, M., & Kalisiak-Mędelska, M. (2022). What are the needs of city dwellers in terms of the development of public spaces? A case study of participatory budgeting in Częstochowa, Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 5171. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095171 Go to original source...
    30. Kratochvíl, P. (2015). Městský veřejný prostor [City public space]. Zlatý řez.
    31. Latham, A., & Layton, J. (2019). Social infrastructure and the public life of cities: Studying urban sociality and public spaces. Geography Compass, 13(7), e12444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12444 Go to original source...
    32. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Blackwell Publishing.
    33. Lehečka, M. (2019). "Pocity plotu": teritoriální (re)produkce, normativita a ne/viditelnost ve veřejném prostoru panelového sídliště ['Feelings of the fence': Territorial (re)production, normativity and non/visibility in the public space of a prefabricated housing estate]. Sociální studia / Social Studies, 16(1), 57-77. https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2019-1-57 Go to original source...
    34. Low, S., & Smith, N. (Eds.) (2006). The politics of public space. Routledge.
    35. Luo, S., Shi, J., Lu, T., & Furuya, K. (2022). Sit down and rest: Use of virtual reality to evaluate preferences and mental restoration in urban park pavilions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 220, 104336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104336 Go to original source...
    36. Lux, M. (2003). Housing policy: An end or a new beginning? Local government and public service reform initiative. Open Society Institute.
    37. Lux, M., Cirman, A., & Sunega, P. (2017). Housing restitution policies among post-socialist countries: Explaining divergence. International Journal of Housing Policy, 17(1), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2016.1246602 Go to original source...
    38. Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.
    39. Maurer, M., Yoon, L., Visnic, O., & Cook, E. (2023). Effects on perceptions of greenspace benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Local Environment, 28(10), 1279-1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2023.2202381 Go to original source...
    40. Mehta, V. (2014). Evaluating public space. Journal of Urban Design, 19(1), 53-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2013.854698 Go to original source...
    41. Melichar, J., & Kaprová, K. (2013). Revealing preferences of Prague's homebuyers toward greenery amenities: The empirical evidence of distance-size effect. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.003 Go to original source...
    42. Musil, J. (1971). Sociologie bydlení. [Sociology of housing]. Svoboda.
    43. Musil, J., Kotačla, L., Lérová, I., Librová, E., Macková, L., Procházka, V., & Ryšavý, Z. (1985). Lidé a sídliště [People and housing estates]. Svoboda.
    44. Musterd, S., & van Kempen, R. (2007). Trapped or on the springboard? Housing careers in large housing estates in European cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(3), 311-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2007.00345.x Go to original source...
    45. Musterd, S., van Kempen, R., & Rowlands, R. (2009). Mass housing estates on different tracks: An introduction to the book. In R. Rowlands, S. Musterd & R. van Kempen (Eds.), Mass housing in Europe (pp. 1-19). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274723_1 Go to original source...
    46. Nesbitt, L., & Meitner, M. J. (2016). Exploring relationships between socioeconomic background and urban greenery in Portland, OR. Forests, 7(8), 162. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7080162 Go to original source...
    47. Ouředníček, M., & Jíchová, J. (2017). Úvod [Introduction]. In M. Ouředníček & J. Jíchová (Eds.), Sociální prostředí Prahy: Město na prahu 21. století [The social environment of Prague: A city on the threshold of the 21st century] (pp. 13-26). Academia.
    48. Ouředníček, M., & Kopecká, Z. (2021). Towards ordinary quarters: The development of housing estates in Prague after transformation. Journal of House and the Built Environment, 38, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-021-09891-4 Go to original source...
    49. Ouředníček, M., Pospíšilová, L., Puldová, P., Temelová, J., & Novák, J. (2012). Prostorová typologie a zonace Prahy [Spatial typology and zoning of Prague]. In M. Ouředníček & J. Temelová (Eds.), Sociální proměny pražských čtvrtí [Social transformations of Prague neighbourhoods] (pp. 268-297). Academia.
    50. Panduro, T. E., & Veie, K. L. (2013). Classification and valuation of urban green spaces - A hedonic house price valuation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 120, 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.08.009 Go to original source...
    51. Portal of the Capital City of Prague. (2021). Praha eviduje na svém území přes 90 tisíc psů [Prague has over 90,000 dogs registered in its territory]. https://praha.eu/w/praha_eviduje_na_svem_uzemi_pres_90_3308803
    52. Pospěch, P. (2013). Městský veřejný prostor: interpretativní přístup [The urban public space: An interpretative approach]. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 49(1), 75-100. https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2013.49.1.04 Go to original source...
    53. Power, A. (1993). Hovels to high rise: State housing in Europe since 1850. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003137818 Go to original source...
    54. Power, A. (1999). High-rise estates in Europe: Is rescue possible? Journal of European Social Policy, 9(2), 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/095892879900900204 Go to original source...
    55. Prak, N. L., & Priemus, H. (1986). A model for the analysis of the decline of postwar housing. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1986.tb00001.x Go to original source...
    56. Priemus, H. (1986). Post-war public high-rise housing estates: What went wrong with housing policy, with the design and with management? The Netherlands Journal of Housing and Environmental Research, 1(2), 157-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496462 Go to original source...
    57. Raneng, J., Howes, M., & Pickering, C. M. (2023). Current and future directions in research on community gardens. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 79, 127814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127814 Go to original source...
    58. Rubaszek, J., Gubański, J., & Podolska, A. (2023). Do we need public green spaces accessibility standards for the sustainable development of urban settlements? The evidence from Wroclaw, Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3067. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043067 Go to original source...
    59. Sennett, R. (1971). The uses of disorder: Personal identity and city life. Vintage Books.
    60. Sennett, R. (1976). Fall of public man. W.W. Norton.
    61. Skálová, A. (2014). Praha má přes padesát sídlišť, paneláky přežily předvídanou smrt [Prague has over fifty housing estates, the prefab houses have survived the predicted death]. Pražský patriot, 22(1). https://www.prazskypatriot.cz/praha-ma-pres-padesat-sidlist-panelaky-prezily-predvidanou-smrt/
    62. Sorkin, M. (Ed.) (1992). Variations on a theme park. The new American city and the end of public space. Hill and Wang.
    63. Sosnowska, M., Kępkowicz, A., Woźniak-Kostecka, I., Lipińska, H., & Renaudie, L. (2022). Exploring the potential for development of urban horticulture in the 1960s housing estates. A case study of Lublin, Poland. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 75, 127689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127689 Go to original source...
    64. Steinführer, A., & Haase, A. (2007). Demographic change as a future challenge for cities in East Central Europe. Geografiska Annaler, 89(2), 183-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00247.x Go to original source...
    65. Sýkora, L., & Bouzarovski, S. (2012). Multiple transformations: Conceptualising the post-communist urban transition. Urban Studies, 49(1), 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397402 Go to original source...
    66. Škamlová, L., Wilkaniec, A., Szczepańska, M., Bačík, V., & Hencelová, P. (2020). The development process and effects from the management of community gardens in two post-socialist cities: Bratislava and Poznań. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 48, 126572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126572 Go to original source...
    67. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
    68. Temelová, J., Novák, J., Ouředníček, M., & Puldová, P. (2011). Housing estates in the Czech Republic after socialism: Various trajectories and inner differentiation. Urban Studies, 48(9), 1811-1834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010379279 Go to original source...
    69. Temelová, J., & Slezáková, A. (2014). The changing environment and neighbourhood satisfaction in socialist high-rise panel housing estates: The time-comparative perceptions of elderly residents in Prague. Cities, 37, 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.002 Go to original source...
    70. Thompson, C. W. (2002). Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60, 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2 Go to original source...
    71. Towers, G. (2000). Shelter is not enough: Transforming multi-storey housing. The Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.46692/9781847425096 Go to original source...
    72. Uherek, Z. (2017). Discourse on public spaces: Praguers in the process of globalization changes and the neoliberal economy. In J. Krase & Z. Uherek (Eds.), Diversity and local contexts (pp. 71-92). Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53952-2_5 Go to original source...
    73. Uherek, Z., Beranská V., Kissová, B., & Hlavičková, M. (2014). Analýza uživatelů a užívání městského veřejného prostoru hl. m. Prahy [The analysis of users and use of urban public space in capital city of Prague]. Etnologický ústav AV ČR.
    74. Urban, F. (2011). Tower and slab: Histories of global mass housing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203804131 Go to original source...
    75. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Hillol, B. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.02 Go to original source...
    76. Wassenberg, F. (2018). Beyond an ugly appearance: Understanding the physical design and built environment of large housing estates. In D. Baldwin-Hess, T. Tammaru & M. van Ham (Eds.), Housing estates in Europe: Poverty, ethnic segregation, and policy challenges (pp. 35-55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92813-5_2 Go to original source...
    77. Zagroba, M., Szczepańska, A., & Senetra, A. (2020). Analysis and evaluation of historical public spaces in small towns in the Polish region of Warmia. Sustainability, 12(20), 8356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208356 Go to original source...
    78. Zarecor, K. E. (2011) Manufacturing a socialist modernity: Housing in Czechoslovakia, 1945-1960. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7zw847 Go to original source...
    79. Zwierzchowska, I., Haase, D., & Dushkova, D. (2021). Discovering the environmental potential of multi-family residential areas for nature-based solutions. A Central European cities perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103975 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return