The “Your City, Your Space” project has come to an end after two years. What was its main goal?

We wanted to engage local residents in a discussion about the city and its future, foster their interest in their own neighborhood, and at the same time gather ideas from people across generations. An important part of the project was educating and engaging young people. We wanted to show them what makes up a city, how it’s planned, and how they themselves can get involved in its transformation. This worked best through the places they use every day and to which they have a connection. In each location, we first organized a workshop for eighth- and ninth-grade students, followed by an outdoor event for the public featuring a traveling participatory game.

The traveling participatory game had five stations. What could people try out at each station, and which elements worked best?

Each station operated independently, but visitors received a card and earned a small reward for completing them all. It was clear that this gamification element was fun for them and motivated them to complete the entire game.

My favorite element was “Our City,” a sort of wheel of fortune featuring various resident roles. You’d draw, for example, an art student or a grandmother interested in history, and then write or draw what that character would need in a public space. Surprisingly, this worked especially well with children, who were able to step outside their own perspective and realize how many different needs exist in the city.

“My Story” also worked wonderfully—a large, interactive chart where people used strings to record, for example, their age or how they spend their time in public spaces. For us, it was also a simple way to gather information about visitors.

“My View” was a plexiglass window facing the surrounding area, where people drew what they felt was missing from the space. These were often benches or playground equipment. “Prague Tomorrow” functioned as a giant memory game showcasing current and future projects in Prague. While it may have been more challenging for the youngest participants, it resonated all the more with adult visitors. The participatory Jenga game, featuring questions about public spaces and city life, was also a favorite.

Which parts of Prague did the project visit, and how many people got involved?

The project gradually visited six very different parts of Prague: Horní Měcholupy, Kunratice, Slivenec, Libeň, Háje, and Prosek. According to our estimates, roughly 1,100 people attended the public events, and 130 eighth- and ninth-grade students participated in the workshops.

Originally, we had planned to work with high school students, but in the end we focused on elementary school students. The entire project was built around a connection to place, and it is these students who spend the most time in the areas around their schools and homes and make the most intensive use of them.

What topics came up most frequently during the project? What did people feel was missing in their neighborhood, and what would they like to change?

It often became clear that people don’t understand how the city is governed, who manages what, and who they should turn to. Many of them were dissatisfied with the city’s communication, but at the same time didn’t know whether to expect information from city hall or from the municipal district.

At the same time, people often don’t want so much new things as they do better care for what already exists. There was a lot of talk, for example, about unmaintained green spaces, neglected parks, and public spaces. In contrast, transportation did not emerge as a major issue. We were also surprised by how satisfied people are with life in housing estates—specifically in Jižní Město and Horní Měcholupy, where they spoke positively about the range of services, transportation access, and green spaces.

People’s connection to the place also came through strongly. At the same time, however, they often felt that they themselves could not change anything. Even if they participate in a public hearing or comment on a plan, the results are usually not visible for a long time. People would also appreciate smaller, temporary interventions.

Did the needs of young people differ depending on which part of Prague they live in?

Six locations aren’t enough to draw any general conclusions, but differences were evident. For example, in Kunratice, young people often said they lacked places to go or services. In housing estates, such as Háje or Horní Měcholupy, on the other hand, they were able to immediately name several places where they spend their time.

So what do young people need? To put it very simply, mainly a place where they can buy something, and then a space where they can “get lost” a bit and be alone—like a bench hidden behind a tree, a playground without small children, or a skatepark. Corner shops often appeared in their stories almost as the center of local life.

Across all neighborhoods, they also had a very strong sense of changes in public spaces that they didn’t understand. When a renovation takes two years, that’s a huge part of an elementary school child’s life. That’s why they often take such interventions very personally. They frequently commented on a lack of maintenance—such as potholes in sidewalks, graffiti, and dilapidation. We would have expected this kind of feedback more from older adults.

What surprised you the most during the project?

First of all, probably the preparation itself. We were surprised by how long it took to turn the idea for a participatory game into a concrete form. The street furniture had to be safe, attractive, fun, educational, and at the same time easily transportable. Among other things, we drew inspiration from Barcelona’s Domestic Data Streamers, who focus on innovative data collection from the public. We collaborated on the concept with graphic designer Bára Listíková; Stanislav Holý designed the pieces, and Matěj Palouš was in charge of production. Two years passed from the initial idea to the project’s launch. So it took two years of preparation for the two years of the project itself.

We also didn’t expect how difficult it would be to involve schools. They’re very busy, and fitting into their schedules was much harder than we’d anticipated.

And then the students themselves surprised us. It turned out just how diverse a single age group can be. What worked great in one class was too complicated elsewhere, and we had to adapt the workshops a lot as we went along. At the same time, we were very pleasantly surprised by how much young people know about their surroundings, how they think about them, and how well they can articulate their opinions.

We also realized a bit that we’re already old—and we’re only in our thirties on the team. Young people have much more scattered attention spans, so keeping them engaged in a single activity for more than ten minutes required a lot of effort and feedback. They are very attuned to the aesthetics of their surroundings. And we didn’t find that they no longer spend time outdoors. In many locations, they were able to find places where they could be alone or with friends.

You gathered a large number of suggestions during the project. What happens to them next?

From the start, we’ve been in contact with the city districts and agreed to pass on all the suggestions from public events and school workshops to them. A large portion of them, in fact, falls under their jurisdiction. Some city districts were even present on-site and were able to speak with people in person.

We also compiled the suggestions for the Office of Participation. They serve as a more in-depth foundation for us, which we intend to build upon even after the project ends. We’ve also gained a lot of experience in how to reach young people—who often fall through the cracks when it comes to participation—what interests them, and what formats work best for them. In the future, we’d like to compare other parts of Prague in a similar way—this time perhaps including areas closer to the city center—and continue holding workshops for young people.

What does the Office of Participation’s rhythm actually look like throughout the year?

Participation is closely tied to what’s currently happening in Prague and at IPR Prague. We’re a service office, and in project-based participation, we often gauge what the public thinks about a specific planned project. That’s why we’re busiest in the spring and fall, while there are fewer events in public spaces during the summer and winter. This fall, however, is unique because elections are taking place and political campaigns are underway in the streets. Participation would get mixed up with these activities, so this fall we’re mostly evaluating and planning.

We’re using this quieter period for conceptual work. We’re focusing on educating young people and students, looking for new participatory formats, and thinking about how to systematically advance participation in Prague.

What led you to get involved in participation, and how did you end up at IPR Prague?

I studied social geography. As part of my studies, I went on a socio-geographic field trip to the Černý Most housing estate, led by Milan Brlík from the Office of Participation at IPR Prague. That was probably the first time I’d heard of it. I became interested in the topic and later got a part-time job right at the Office of Participation—just as the Participation Coordinators project was being evaluated, which I still consider our best achievement to date.

After that, I worked at the Prague 3 municipal district as a political assistant. It was an important experience for me because I came to understand how the municipal office works and how to explain its operations to the public. I then returned to IPR, where I’ve been working for four years. While I was a student, I also completed the minimum requirements for teaching certification and spent about four and a half years teaching geography one day a week at a high school. But now I’m fully dedicated to my work at IPR.

I have to say that what I enjoy most is working with people and the educational aspect of participation. Every participatory process is, in a way, a form of education: first, we explain complex issues to people in the most accessible way possible, relating them to their everyday lives, and then we ask them about their experiences and opinions.