Neštěmice - Housing Estate Mojžíř

  • Investor (key institution):
  • Contact person: Ing. František Podrábský,
  • Year of implementation: 2011
  • Implementation venue

  • Country: Czech Republic
  • Region: Ústecký Region
  • Town: Ústí nad Labem
  • Impact: municipal

    Total costs: 4800000 EUR

    Source per every institution

    • EU fonds: 4,08 mil. EUR EUR
    • other: 0,72 mil. EUR EUR
    1. Improved provision of local cultural and social events.
    2. Improved condition & quality of the public space between the blocks of flats.
    3. Improved attractiveness of the architecture of the socialist buildings.
    4. Improved involvement of the local community in events organized in its quarter.
    1. What forms of cooperation were used as new approaches in the field of rehabilitation and conversion of urban functional areas?
    2. The project includes: totally the prefab house regeneration, traffic modification, new parking places, space for leisure time, playgrounds, sidewalks reconstruction.

    3. Was the building or the space between buildings) identified as a valuable socialist heritage?
    4. None of the buildings or space between buildings have been identified as a valuable socialistic heritage as there are only limited theoretical concepts, methodologies and case studies for the socialistic heritage conservation. The buildings and space is usually modified or transformed regardless of its potential value.

    5. What criteria were applied to make this judgment?
    6. (300 - 600 characters)

    7. Was the building or space between buildings) important to local communities and how were they involved in decision-making process about its rehabilitation or conversion?
    8. The prefabhouses and spaces between the buildings were very important for local communities. The old and unsuitable conditions for living and leisure time were purpose for reconstruction and revitalization. However, local communities didn’t involved in decision-making process.

    9. Were attempts made to improve territorial cohesion within the city/town/district? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    10. The regeneration project has primarily local significance. Only limited interrelation is apparent between local and town level (reconstruction of traffic network, etc.).

    11. Were there attempts to reduced disparities between districts within cities/towns achieved reduced? And, if so, how was success on this front gauged?
    12. No attempts has been made to reduce disparities. The major attention has been devoted to overall regeneration of the zone, which should improve the quality of living and pursuing the leisure time activities of the local communities. The indirect influence on reducing the disparities can be considered by increasing the above mentioned aspects of quality of living and thus approaching them to the rest of the city, and in improvement of the social learning and social interaction potential within the regenerated area between the buldings.

    13. Other important facts and comments, e.g. critical review.
    14. The project was extensive and include both building reconstruction on the one hand, and spaces for leisure time on the other hand.


    There are more than 6 000 people living in Dědina block of flats. The whole revitalization 3 -phases -process took 4 years and the total cost of the project was 11 200 000 EUR. It is one of the first completely reconstructed block of flats as far as the public spaces in Prague are concerned.

    Web site: