Climate change, being far from the physical reality that it indicates, has been abstracted into a pejorative mental nebula, so much so that our anxiety for apocalypse and urge to restore ecological balance cause multiple paradigm shifts in almost every sector of cultural studies and everyday experiences. Architecture’s responses to this conceptual shift have been crystallizing over the last fi ve or more decades (Zardini and Borasi, 2007; Anker, 2010). The mainstream architectural practices articulate the nostalgia for a pristine past of pure environment into a new genre, broadly known as sustainable design and rigidly framed by the technological optimism based on manipulated materials and techniques (Guy, 2012). However, because of the attitude that the problem is solvable through a technical fi x, many holding social science lens argue that such technological optimism is unable to alter the underlying condition of the problem (Guattari, 2008). In such arguments, climate change and the perverse environmental alterations are considered to be a complex spatial manifestation of global socio-political processes of exclusion (Ingersoll, 2012). It is considered spatial because the situation emerged from human efforts to transform the available natural space into habitable, cultivable, and consumable places. The thesis also holds that an uneven distribution of limited natural resources in combination with the endless growth of consumerist capitalism contributes to the formation of social exclusion.