Architecture cannot be studied in isolation and is greatly benefited from having knowledge not only about the construction industry but understanding the political economic and social environment of the surrounding. The understanding of the various systems helps us redefine what is feasible and what may just be a temporary solution. Although we may believe that social and economic profits cannot coexist this is not entirely true as seen in the cases of redevelopment after wars or even in the water supply solution provided in New York.   It is very tempting to seduce ourselves, as architects or as anybody keen on architecture or otherwise involved in the design process that the answer to our problems lies with buildings. Do you actually believe you can separate buildings out from the infrastructure of cities and mobility of transit and the expectations and incentives of people? The buildings are what form a major part but not necessarily the most important part of the infrastructure of the city.  Whether it is the transportation networks, water supply and other such systems that results in the buildings or in most scenarios the demand for modes of transportation or incentives that arises due to the existing buildings it cannot be ignored that both are a result of factors that cannot be independent a rely heavily on financial, political and social context. Thus the architecture of the city may not entirely depend on the design of buildings in isolation but the idea is nesting it to the surroundings so that it is adaptable to future developments or sets well within the existing systems. So no I don’t believe that they can be separated or even clearly distinguished from one another. Why do people tend to believe that what is financially profitable (for developers) is not actually equivalent to economically feasible (positive impacts on social welfare)? How would you show that this does not necessarily have to be like this (but rather the opposite)? The general tendency for developers is usually looked as being only financially profitable as it is assumed that short term benefits are more visually and easily understandable than long term profits or social welfare. This is not necessarily the same in every scenario; a simple example of the same can be seen while a country hosts the Olympic Games. Here although the developers make huge financially benefits at the same time huge amount of social welfare can be seen through the development of the overall infrastructure required to conduct the events which help improve the life the of the people living in those cities.