— Moscow Interior and Design Week returned for its third edition, sparking questions about a global idea in design.
— The sentiment is clear: such events hold growing significance for designers and everyone who promotes related initiatives within the country. It is time for state support to align with private sector collaboration. Attending, promoting, and lending a hand at every event are encouraged. The message is simple: do your best and show up, regardless of circumstances.
— Have the recent weeks helped participants secure new orders and advance their work?
— Designers earned strong publicity, and registration for Weeks is free, which is a meaningful advantage. Exhibiting on a large platform is not always feasible for them, given tight budgets and the need to manage material availability. Even when a direct order isn’t immediate after the expo, the message travels: Russia has talented designers, there are solid alternatives to brands that left the country, and design is accessible rather than elitist or prohibitively expensive.
Beyond Design Week, there is noticeable momentum as manufacturers begin to unite, launch competitions, and engage designers to create large series for mass production. The current demand is real, and this week serves the community’s needs and the designers’ calls for support.
— Does the Moscow Design Museum contribute, and are works by contemporary designers displayed there as well?
— The exhibition History of Russian Design showcases curatorial selections in Favorites at the New Tretyakov Gallery. The museum gathers the best products from each designer and rotates the exhibit every three months. A new collaboration with the Yandex Museum focuses on technology. Earlier, a joint project with Moscow Interior and Design Week featured contemporary designers across sections, highlighting the influence of the 1920s and 1930s on modern design. The aim is to illustrate how history informs contemporary practice.
— So, are exhibition ideas built on parallels between eras?
— Yes. The approach includes both experimental pieces and mass-produced items. The exploration asks why some remarkable inventions stay unpublished or unreleased, and what was produced in single copies versus widely produced works. These comparisons illuminate the full spectrum of design practice.
— Can a museum or Design Week shape public taste?
— There is a recognition that aesthetic preferences in the country are still developing, and taste in interiors is evolving. Yet there is honesty about where these tastes stand today. The question of what people are drawn to, from gold accents to classical motifs, has deep historical roots that echo through time. A cultural shift has occurred, with periods of openness and experimentation influencing how spaces are imagined today.
— What about the influence of iconic names and moments in Russian design history?
— The choice often reflects a broader cultural journey. In certain eras, institutions and access to design education expanded, allowing a wider range of designers to contribute. The dialogue between eras reveals a pattern: new materials, evolving aesthetics, and shifts in production shape how interiors are conceived. The 60s stand out as a pivotal period when design institutions proliferated and designers actively shaped both light and heavy industry objects. Archives from veteran designers play a crucial role in guiding today’s curators and researchers, helping to identify objects and preserve material memory. This collaborative spirit keeps the museum alive and relevant. [Source: Moscow Design Museum interview, 2024]
— How did Soviet design align with Western trends in interiors?
— There were shared currents worldwide, with designers staying connected across borders. The appeal of the 60s lies in its clarity, where design education and practice intersected with practical needs. Institutes like VNIITE guided design aesthetics, translating Western ideas and participating in international exhibitions. The emergence of new materials and dyes in the mid-20th century accelerated experimentation, while the 60s marked the birth of a distinctly domestic design voice through dedicated institutes and collaborative projects. This period laid a foundation that still resonates in today’s conversations about design. The continuity is evident in the way constructivist ideas and 60s sensibilities surface in contemporary discourse on efficiency, modularity, and recyclable approaches.
— Should modern designers study the history of Soviet design?
— Looking back is informative. Studying constructivist principles helps understand the logic of compact living spaces and the way architectural and interior strategies evolved to fit urban realities. The era’s emphasis on resourcefulness, like folding furniture and flexible zoning, remains relevant as today’s designers balance compact living with comfort. The idea of reasonable consumption—creating durable, high-quality pieces that endure—is still guiding the field. Even debates about mass production versus custom projects echo the past. The conversation also touches on contemporary store models and the role of mass-market brands in shaping consumer expectations. The thread connects past and present through a shared dedication to quality and purposeful design.
— Do modern designers need to know about the history of Soviet design to stay current?
— Absolutely. Knowledge of the past informs today’s practice, offering a lens on how materials, manufacturing, and cultural shifts influence interiors. The dialogue between eras remains a driving force behind a thoughtful, resilient design culture that values both tradition and innovation. Modern designers can draw wisdom from the way designers and institutions navigated constraints, found creative solutions, and contributed to a durable design language that still inspires contemporary work. [Attribution: collective insights from interviews and exhibition notes, 2024]