The Collapse of Communism in Central & Eastern Europe
Architecture in Eastern & Central Europe During Communism and Beyond
Architecture in the Czech Republic
The Future of Architecture in Socially Liberated Societies
The fall of powerful, often socially oppressive, dictatorial governments
is a global trend that has the power to affect masses of people. The specific
government that my paper will examine is the communist rule of the former
USSR. The Soviet Union, as an organized political and economic system, had
been in control since 1917 (Watson xiii). Since its conception, and throughout
the entire period, various groups throughout Central and Eastern Europe had
been opposed to communist rule. However, it was only after Mikhail Gorbachev’s
first efforts to reform that they were able to vocalize those feelings. Gorbachev’s
attempts at restructuring were intended to revitalize the flailing economy
of the USSR. Little did he know that his reforms would lead to the collapse
of one of the greatest superpowers of the twentieth century.
Many art forms suffered during the communist era, and for multiple reasons.
First and foremost, the various communist governments were in complete control
of all means of expression, including newspapers, magazines, books, radio,
television, movies, architecture, etc. Secondly, under the socialist economic
system, there simply was not a great deal of extra money to be spent on frivolities.
With regards to the area of urban planning, members of this field were under
complete communist control. They built what the government told them to, and
in the style that the government dictated to them. This style generally had
the purpose of promoting communist economic and political ideals.
Following the collapse of communism, there are numerous scars left on the
urban landscape. Today, one of the roles of architects is to rebuild this
landscape, and in many cases to revitalize the old buildings that had been
neglected for so long. Within the Czech Republic, especially the city of Prague,
they are struggling to preserve the beauty of the past while making buildings
practical and functional for the future. Designers within the city are dealing
with urban planning issues, historic preservation and conservation, and the
ever-increasing need for spaces, which is caused by the thriving capitalist
system. Prague is a city that is responding to the issues that have come from
freedom: democracy, free markets, human rights, and rule of law (Richburg
27).
The Collapse of Communism in Central & Eastern Europe
One of the most stunning revolutions in all of history ended with the disintegration
of Europe’s last great empire, the Soviet Union, followed by the demise
of communism throughout Eastern and Central Europe (Larsen 143). The results
of these events will last for years to come, affecting countless generations
of Europeans in this region.
The most influential conditions that gave rise to the collapse of this superpower,
and thereby the ensuing trend of the collapse of communism throughout the
area, were the political and economic reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev. Beginning
in the mid 1980s, the newly elected Soviet leader initiated a series of events
that he believed would revive a flailing economy and nation (Bremmer xix).
In 1987, Gorbachev had acknowledged the value of free political choice for
individuals (Watson 11). He may have done this only to facilitate economic
reform, but whatever the reason, this simple acknowledgement would unknowingly
lead to the collapse of the USSR.
Gorbachev’s reformist policies were known as perestroika, and their
announced aim was to “graft onto the trunk of the Communist regime vines
and establish shoots derived from liberal principles” (Colton 19). Some
of the early reforms included eased restrictions on artistic expression, intellectual
inquiry, and private association (Watson 12). In 1988, Gorbachev announced
a daring plan to introduce multi-candidate elections and authentic legislatures
(Colton 19). Throughout all of these reforms, it is apparent that Gorbachev
believed his reforms would preserve the socialist system, if only in a more
enlightened form (Gorbachev 45).
The collapse of the Soviet Union, and thus the communist system, possesses
a magnitude that the world has not seen for many years. From this phenomenon,
twenty-seven sovereign states were created and forced to face the world on
their own (Larsen 143). Prior to this time, they were protected by the political
and economic system provided by the USSR. “The loss of centralized economic
power is what we really mean when we describe the collapse of the Soviet Union”
(Larsen 144). These newly formed republics were left with the task of building
nation-states, turning failed, but long-lived authoritarianism into democracy,
and creating market based economies on the ruins of a centrally planned one
(Colton 11).
What is so interesting about the resulting republics is that each one of them
chose to deal with the revolution in a different way. The “whirlwind
unleashed by Gorbachev” left no formula for regulating conflict and
accommodating diverse social interests (Colton 22). “The peoples of
East Central Europe contested Communist rule-and their leaders reacted-differently
according to their diverse national histories and to the legacies of Communism
in each country” (Rothschild 301). In addition, the varying degrees
of nationalism, cultural identity, and support for the Communist party, caused
each emerging republic to deal with reform in their own way. Some of the Eastern
European countries that supported the collapse of communism were Poland, Hungary,
Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia. Those that denied the need for any reform were
the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and Romania (Simons 199).
In Poland, the Communist party had been thoroughly discredited as a means
for efficient government. The Polish market was in a state of disaster with
skyrocketing inflation, and badly needed rapid access to Western economic
resources in order to rectify that situation (Simons 196). As a result, the
Communists were forced to begin negotiations with the reformist party, known
as Solidarity, in February of 1989 (Rothschild 270). In Hungary, the push
for reform was led more by politics than economics. Because the economic situation
was not as dire as in Poland, the Hungarian Communist party believed that
it could maintain control of the country, and thus resisted restructuring.
Despite the initial resistance, reform Communists did negotiate themselves
into the transitional governments that eventually put non-Communists into
power (Rothschild 301). In Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, the governments gave
their formal approval to the Soviet government, but really hoped to use economic
reform to avoid political reform (Simons 199). The Czech people were still
living in the shadows of the Prague Spring of 1968, in which their attempt
at freedom was put to a stop by the invasion of the Soviet Army (Blanning
294). The fear that remained in the Czech people made them somewhat slower
to embrace the revolution. However, when reform did come in the form of the
Velvet Revolution, the leaders were forced to take over immediately (Williams
66).
In the German Democratic Republic as well as Romania, the regimes insisted
that they had already done what Gorbachev was attempting in the Soviet Union
(Watson 37). Both countries repressed most dissent and exported the remainder
to the West. They also had a large separation between the working class and
the intelligentsia (Simons 199). Despite their similarities, there was one
major difference between the GDR and Romania: wealth. The GDR was comparatively
rich while Romania was poor, while also considered an “international
pariah” (Simons 199). Romania’s opposition to the collapse was
made evident in their first free elections in 1989, when they elected a former
Communist to power (Rothschild 281).
Some of the institutions that support the collapse of communism throughout
Eastern and Central Europe are multi-national corporations, humanitarian organizations,
as well as the European Union. Multi-national corporations benefit from this
trend because they are now able to enter markets that were previously shut
off by the communist government. Humanitarian organizations do not directly
benefit from the collapse, but rather the people that they serve. Finally,
the European Union profits because they are able to expand their organization,
thus increasing their power and wealth.
Those that oppose the trend are certainly the former heads of the Communist
party. Additionally, each local government maintained control of its population
through “spies.” Various members of the party would be on the
lookout for behavior that went against the socialist state, and would report
that behavior back to the heads of government. Certainly all of these individuals
oppose the collapse of communism because it has resulted in a loss of power
on their part.
It’s rather difficult to explain exactly how an historical event such
as the collapse of the USSR happened. It was clearly made possible by reform
policies, and yet still came as a shock to most of the world. Few envisioned
any possible internal threat to the Soviet system, given the party’s
political monopoly, the loyalty of the Soviet military and the coercive power
of the KGB (Watson 9). One can only assume that a political and social system
as unpopular as communism was, could not last forever. As soon as the “winds
of change” began blowing in the area, opponents took complete advantage
of their opportunity for freedom.
This trend “is arguably the most important social, political, and economic
development of the past several decades” (Larsen 143). The impact that
it has had on the region is that twenty-seven countries were able to emerge
as independent nation-states. The trend is so large that it stretches from
the center of Germany to the Pacific coast of Russia (Mandelbaum 1). These
countries now have the ability to “pursue with varying degrees of vigor
the twin goals of democracy and a market economy” (Rothschild 265).
While this has not been an easy road to take, with some countries succeeding
more than others, the value is in the fact that society now has the choice
to travel whatever path it chooses.
Architecture in Eastern & Central Europe During Communism and
Beyond
The collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe has played a dramatic
role in the field of architecture. Historical architecture once again has
a social value placed on it, architects have been given newfound freedom,
and a prosperous market economy drives the profession onwards, and in new
directions. On the other hand, some would argue that architecture played a
role in the collapse of communism. Czechoslovakia’s first president
following the revolution, Vaclav Havel, has said that the concrete towers
that dominated the built landscape of communism “helped to precipitate
‘revolution’” (Leach 2). Havel conveys the fact that the
architecture of communism was, to the people, a reflection of the oppressive,
controlling, and dismal life imposed upon them by socialist rule. Architecture
became a constant reminder of their unhappiness, and thus a driving force
behind their revolutionary ideas.
In order to understand the state of the profession today, it is essential
to understand the architecture of the past. Communist architecture, as well
as the overall socialist views towards architecture, have shaped the way that
architects practice today. Had it not been for communist rule, architects
in this region of the world would not be dealing with today’s current
issues.
One of the greatest problems plaguing Central and Eastern Europe has been
that of the built environment (Crowley 4). The architecture and urban planning
from the early 1950s through the mid-1980s are drenched in communist ideology.
During this era, architecture was restricted to what the Soviet regime deemed
appropriate for a socialist state. This type of style began with the rejection
of the Western influence, followed by the construction of Socialist Realism
on a national basis (Aman 63).
Through various forms of publicity and propaganda, the architectural example
of the Soviet Union was pressed upon each of the Soviet states. This was achieved
through “the monopolization of the mass media by the totalitarian government,
the huge propaganda stadium-spectacles, certain articles on architecture that
appeared in specialized reviews, the surveillance and censoring of personal
communication and correspondence, and the limitations imposed on printing,
copying and reproduction of printed material” (Petcu 177).
The architecture of the Soviet bloc, as of architecture throughout the world,
can be divided into two main sections, that of public and private. In the
public sector, the building types that were highly respected were heavy industry
and those that made direct political statements (Aman 77). These buildings
represented the transformation and power of the new socialist economic system,
as well as the strength and permanence of the new political order (Fowkes
65).
The communist government’s urban planning/architectural projects can
perhaps best be understood through one of the most dramatic and devastating
examples, which is in the Romanian city of Bucharest. Beginning in the late
1970s, the country’s dictator, Nicolai Ceausescu, began a venture that
would “properly reflect the greatness of Romanian communism” (Salecl
100). In order to accomplish this, Ceausescu demanded the demolition of nearly
one-quarter of the old town center, which eliminated numerous churches, monasteries,
hospitals, schools, and homes (Salecl 100). In exchange for this cultural
loss, the people of Bucharest were given a new socialist administrative building
that is estimated to be the second largest building in the world behind the
Pentagon (Leach 9).
The destruction of the city center is of vital importance in understanding
the socialist ideals that were behind this urban planning project. Ceausescu
meant to physically erase the historical memory of the people. “Building
socialism involved changing people’s minds and view of history...and
new public monuments were expected to play a major educational role in this
respect” (Fowkes 65). Therefore, “the ’wound’ Ceausescu
made in the ’living flesh of the city’ has a special symbolic
meaning” (Salecl 101). His aim was to wipe out the previous Romanian
national identity which was represented in the architecture of the past (Petcu
177).
In addition to the historical loss, the citizens of Romania were put under
additional economic hardship because the project cost the government so much
money (Salecl 100). This was just another example of communist leaders putting
themselves and their own desires before the needs of the people.
One of the architectural features of Ceausescu’s project, the notion
of surveillance, is a concept that can be found in multiple examples of communist
architecture. The complex sits atop an artificial hill from which one can
view a great part of the city. “It is significant that the palace, observed
from the avenue, appears to have no entrance; there are only numerous windows,
which gives the impression of an all-present gaze” (Petcu 177). (See
Figure 1) Surveillance was an important way in which the communists maintained
control over their people. The idea of omnipresence was all that the rulers
needed to control the whole of society. “It was not necessary to control
each individual; it was enough to strike only occasionally, randomly controlling
a small number of people in order to inspire fear among the population as
a whole” (Leach 9).
When Ceausescu’s regime collapsed in the late 1980s along with the rest
of the communist governments throughout Eastern Europe, the people of Bucharest
were left with a new question: what to do with the massive architectural ‘wonder‘
or ‘monster,’ depending on one‘s point of view (Petrescu
188). “Some people insisted that the palace had to be demolished; others
proposed that it become a museum of communist terror; still others suggested
that it be transformed into a casino” (Salecl 100). In the end, the
new regime decided to establish the palace as the site of the new parliament
and as an international congress center (Petrescu 188).
Just as architects are dealing with the damage inflicted on public spaces,
so too must they acknowledge the private spaces within former communist countries.
With regards to the private segment of urban planning and architecture, the
construction of public housing appears to have served a dual-role. To begin
with, the apartment complexes were needed in order to fill the void created
following the destruction caused by World War II. Additionally, government-sponsored
housing served to promote communist ideals. “Gone were the days when
workers only went home to eat and sleep. Now they also had leisure to spend
in their homes, at the cultural center, and at the sports ground” (Aman
82). “In the best traditions of vulgar Marxism, the Communist regime
believed that people were shaped by their environment. New uniform socialist
housing, it reasoned, would produce a new uniform Socialist Man born of bourgeois
individualism” (Hanley 5).
Throughout most of Eastern and Central Europe, multifamily housing is the
norm for the majority of families (Crowley 12). As such, the primary opportunity
for architects is in multifamily housing blocks that can alleviate the blow
of the communist era (Scott 43). Throughout the area once held behind the
Iron Curtain, architects are creating new housing projects, while revitalizing
old ones.
In Budapest, Hungary, architects are revitalizing the Wekerle Settlement,
which is a turn-of-the-century housing estate that had been built on the outskirts
of the city (Scott 42). The Settlement is based upon the concept of a central
urban park surrounded by mixed-use, residential/commercial/retail buildings,
which are then surrounded by individual residential buildings (Kiss 1). This
somewhat-revolutionary building concept has been used on a limited basis throughout
the world, and that is primarily because information regarding it was kept
behind the Iron Curtain. Since 1990, the Wekerle Settlement has been registered
as a European national heritage and is one of the very few existing garden
towns next to Britain’s Dornchester, Germany’s Dresda and France’s
Strasburg (Kiss 1). This type of urban planning was eliminated during the
communist era, and has only now been given the opportunity to come alive again.
While most urban-dwellers throughout Central/Eastern Europe do live primarily
in multifamily housing, architects have also found limited opportunities in
the field of single-family housing (Scott 42). A few of the more economically
successful residents have chosen to build single-family homes either on the
outskirts of the city, or in the countryside. Throughout Central/Eastern Europe,
this type of house is built of full-masonry construction utilizing poured-concrete
floor slabs and often poured-concrete, structural-roof systems (Scott 42).
This is a very traditional style of building, and as such, rather expensive
for most people. In response to this expensive technique, new technologies
that are more prevalent throughout the Western world are coming to post-communist
areas. For example, stick construction, which utilizes standard wood structural
framing, and is thus less expensive, is becoming more accessible to the European
builder (Aman 83).
Whether an architect chooses to work on multifamily or single-family housing,
he or she must always keep in mind the existing urban fabric that they are
working in. “The challenge for Eastern and Central Europe will be to
rebuild its housing in a way that respects the past while looking to the future”
(Scott 43).
Architecture in the Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic, primarily the capitol of Prague, architecture has the
potential to once again reach new and exciting levels as architects are given
the opportunity to fully express themselves. “The Velvet Revolution
may have liberated architects from their roles as state functionaries, but
it also revealed a considerably reduced profession with a lot of catching
up to do” (Giovannini 35).
One of the primary goals of urban planning and architecture firms in Prague
is historical restoration and preservation. Prior to World War I, Prague was
one of the centers of the architectural world, as a “long-protected
urban shrine” (Theinhardt 5). Following both World Wars, as well as
nearly fifty years of communist rule, the historical architecture of Prague
was in desperate need of a makeover.
The symbolic revolution of Prague and its people can be compared to a gem
that has been lost, only for it and its potential beauty to be rediscovered
years later. The built environment of Prague, which saw its last great creative
burst in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, had been neglected throughout
the Cold War era (Scott 40). Just like a dull gem, the beauty still remained,
and needed only to be revealed. Similarly, while a gem has many facets, so
too does the “revolution” of Czech architecture. The revolution
of the built environment encompasses concepts such as urban planning, historical
preservation, modern architecture, and ridding the city of communist symbols,
such as monuments, statues, etc. All of these issues must be addressed by
modern architects, thus providing a multitude of outlets for expression.
The people of the Czech republic are adjusting to life under a new democratic
rule and a new economic system, both concepts which can manifest themselves
in the built environment. Similarly, “architects in eastern and central
Europe are facing the challenge of a new social and economic system with the
fall of communism, and they are surveying the damage inflicted on the region’s
architectural legacy under communism” (Scott, 40).
During the socialist era, many residents lived in concrete apartment complexes,
with little to no aesthetic value. (See Figure 2) “Stark, monotonous
prefab housing districts are common sights on the urban landscape today”
(Scott 40). Throughout the 1970s and 80s, farmland on the city's outskirts
was plowed up and turned into a series of gigantic building sites (Bransten).
Out of the small plots grew a harvest of identical housing estates. Jizni
Mesto 1, one of the largest in Prague, is located on the eastern side of the
city. Over eighty thousand people, nearly ten percent of Prague's population,
now live here (Bransten). The residential area consists of four, eight, and
twelve story monotonous residential unit blocks with a centrally located group
of twenty to twenty-four story housing blocks (Scott 41).
Jizni Mesto was never meant to be architecturally beautiful, but original
plans had called for a fully-equipped functional satellite city, complete
with parks, playgrounds, shops, movie theaters, schools and shopping centers
(Bransten). Unfortunately for the inhabitants of the area, money for the project
ran out, and all of the social extras were never built. This scenario was
repeated across many Eastern European cities, resulting in a maze of identical
buildings separated by empty lots (Hanley).
Following the collapse of communism, a team of architects has gathered in
order to mend the social damage created by Jizni Mesto. The architect in charge
of the urban planning project is a local citizen of Prague, Jitka Bouskova.
The project, which began six years ago, calls for a comprehensive regeneration
of the area. “The project's main component is the creation of a central
boulevard and square, lined with parks and shops, to give this sprawling agglomeration
the physical center it now lacks” (Bransten).
Additionally, the project creates a zoning plan that designates which areas
can be built-up and which areas must remain green (Scott 42).
The communist era has left behind “Towering concrete block after towering
concrete block, running like artificial canyons in all directions as far as
the eye can see” (Hanley). Despite the unattractiveness of certain parts
of the urban landscape, the Czech president, Vaclav Havel has a dream for
the future of the Czech people:
Life in the towns and villages will have overcome the legacy of grayness,
uniformity, anonymity, and ugliness inherited from the totalitarian era. It
will have a human dimension. Every main street will have at least two bakeries,
two sweet-shops, two pubs, and many other small shops, all privately owned
and independent. Thus the streets and neighborhoods will regain their unique
face and atmosphere. Small communities will naturally begin to form again,
communities centered on the street, the apartment block, or the neighborhood.
People will once more begin to feel the phenomenon of home (Leach 158).
On the public and social side, architects are dealing with revitalizing old
public buildings in a quest to keep up with the growing capitalist system.
Following the Velvet Revolution of 1989, Prague has experienced a booming
market economy, low-inflation, and high-employment (Mateju). All of these
factors have contributed to the city becoming central Europe’s banking
center, as well as the destination of nearly ninety million tourists annually
(Giovannini 35). This influx of money has initiated a “strangely invisible
architectural boom, proceeding largely unseen behind historically designated,
officially protected facades” (Giovannini 34). (See Figure 3)
A perfect example is a project which has been awarded an AR+ D prize for conversion.
This building, located in the middle of Prague was revitalized by architects
Claudio Lazzarini and Carl Pickering (“Czech Account”). The exterior
has been restored to its original appearance, while the interior has been
completely redone in order to accommodate modern needs. It is an elegant and
economic conversion which puts two large flats, duplex and triplex, over two
floors of shop and offices (“Czech Account”). Architects have
used mostly steel and glass for the transformation, both of which are traditional
Czech materials, but in new and exciting way. “This shift to contemporary
uses requires a delicate balance with preservation, which exerts a strong
conservative force on Prague’s architecture, beyond simply the building
height, facade details, and a structure’s role in an ensemble”
(Giovannini 34).
Perhaps the most driving force behind historical preservation is the “socio-
economic contribution to the welfare of the community” (Lichfield, 103).
Lichfield argues that the general built heritage of any society is the total
urban fabric which is inherited at any moment in time (Lichfield, 103). By
definition, present-day Prague is a general built heritage, and as such, the
members of Czech society have a duty to protect and preserve it.
The Future of Architecture in Socially Liberated Societies
Communism, and all that it encompasses, including political, social, and economic
ideals, has played a crucial role in the architecture of central and eastern
European countries. This role from the past plays a vital role in the future.
Had it not been for communist rule, architecture would not have developed
in the socially oppressive way that it did, and thus, today’s architects
would not be dealing with mending the wounds of socialism. However, since
the past cannot be changed, modern architects in these countries are embracing
the challenges that come with new political and economic systems, and the
many effects that stem from those concepts. The urban planners, architects,
and interior designers that practice in the Czech Republic are embracing their
new found social and professional freedom with an excitement and vigor that
is apparent in their work.
Presently, this trend is more regional, affecting the area of Central and
Eastern Europe. However, in the future, it may possess the power to impact
people across the globe. Countries that are currently within the grip of communism,
such as Cuba, China, and North Korea, may one day experience the same revolution
that rocked the USSR. This idea seems more plausible with some of the actions
that China has taken, which make its economy look increasingly capitalist.
If and when these revolutions do take place, the architects in those countries
will have to address the same issues that Central/Eastern European architects
are currently dealing with. Modern architects in this part of the world must
embrace the past while constantly looking towards the future.
Aman, Anders. Architecture and Ideology in Eastern Europe During the Stalin Era. New York: The Architectural History Foundation, INC., 1992.
Blanning, T.C.W., ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Bransten, Jeremy. “Czech Republic: Far From Tourists, Prague Housing District Struggle.” Radio Free Europe. 12 May 1998.
Bremmer, Ian and Ray Taras, ed. Nations & Politics in the Soviet Successor States. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Colton, Timothy J., and Robert Legvold, eds. After the Soviet Union: From Empire to Nations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992.
Crowley, David and Susan E. Reid. “Socialist Spaces: Sites of Everyday
Life in the Eastern Bloc.” Socialist Spaces: Sites of Everyday Life
in the Eastern Bloc.
Eds. David Crowley and Susan E. Reid. New York: Berg, 2002. 1-22.
Csagoly, Paul. “Post-Com Pre-Fab.” Central Europe Review. 6 December 1999.
“Czech Account.” Architectural Review. 1234 (1991): 56-57. [1234= vol. 206]
Fowkes, Reuben. “The Role of Monumental Sculpture in the Construction of Socialist Space in Stalinist Hungary.” Socialist Spaces: Sites of Everyday Life in the Eastern Bloc. Eds. David Crowley and Susan E. Reid. New York: Berg, 2002. 65-84
Giovannini, Joseph. “Czechs and Balances.” Architecture. 2 (1997): 34-35. [2=vol. 86]
Gorbachev, Mikhail. The August Coup: The Truth and the Lessons. New York: Harper Collins, 1991.
Hanley, Sean. “Concrete Conclusions: The Discreet Charm of the Czech
Panelak.”
Central Europe Review. 22 February 1999.
Kiss, Tamas. “Little Pest’s Big Plans.” The Budapest Sun Online. 10 April 2003.
Larsen, Jeffrey A. “Post Communism: Four Perspectives.” Naval
War College Review.
52 (1999): 143-145. [52= vol. 52]
Leach, Neil, ed. Architecture and Revolution. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Lichfield, Nathaniel. “Achieving the Benefits of Conservation.” Built Environment. 2 (1997): 103-110. [2= vol. 23]
Mateju, Petr. “A Capitol Idea.” The Prague Post. 5 February 2003.
Mandelbaum, Michael, ed. Post-Communism: Four Perspectives. New York: Council
on Foreign Relations Book, 1996.
Petcu, Constantin. “Totalitarian city: Bucharest 1980-9, semio-clinical
files.” Architecture and Revolution. Ed. Neil Leach. New York: Routledge,
1999.
177-187.
Petrescu, Dorin. “The People’s House, or the voluptuous violence of an architectural paradox.” Architecture and Revolution. Ed. Neil Leach. New York: Routledge, 1999. 188-195.
Richburg, Keith B. “The EU and the Power of the People; Czech and Other
Leaders Are
Eager to Join, but Their Citizens Aren’t so Sure.” The Washington
Post. 8 November 2002.
Rothschild, Joseph and Nancy M. Wingfield. Return to Diversity. New York:
Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Salecl, Renata. “The State as a Work of Art.” Architecture and Revolution. Ed. Neil Leach. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Scott, Charles. “Europe Rebuilds.” Architecture Minnesota. 2 (1996): 40-43. [2= vol. 22]
Simons Jr., Thomas W. Eastern Europe in the Postwar World. New York: St.
Martin’s
Press, 1991.
Sykora, Ludek, Jiri Kamenicky and Petr Hauptmann. “Changes in the Spatial Structure of Prague and Brno in the 1990s.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica: 2000. 61-76.
Theinhardt, Marketa and Pascal Varejka. Prague: Hidden Splendors. Paris: Flammarion, 1994.
Watson, William E. The Collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1998.
Williams, Kieran. The Prague Spring and its Aftermath: Czechoslovak Politics
1968-1970. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1997.
Home | Syllabus | Seminar Paper | Awards | Awards by School | Awards by Semester | Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||