The first implication is that design, as a relevant intervention in daily enactments, is not to be found in the initial formulations of design proposals, but in the trajectories and evolutions they become part of. I do not think that Mies van der Rohe’s intentions are the ones that are performed now by the society which the pavilion is part of, or at least not to a great extent. This means that the effects of design are not the direct result of the pre-defined programs on which designed entities are founded, but rather of the way their programs interact with a great number of other entities and are reconstructed within time as part of that process. As a practicing architect, this is quite obvious to me, because I have very often seen how designed assemblages always evolve into different compositions that gain a broad independence in their performance. That makes them differ from the way their evolution was predicted during the “design process.”