Inhabitation is not occupancy but a situated capacity to hold a place within intersecting systems of space, rights, labour, material resources and social recognition. A dwelling can be geographically close to services and still remain precarious; a shelter can be institutionally authorised and yet prohibit the gestures through which domestic life is made; a squat can lack formal legitimacy while generating dense infrastructures of care and political agency.

The decisive urban question is therefore not simply where people are located, but what forms of action, permanence, appropriation and relation become possible from that location. Situated inhabitation names this composite condition. It refuses to isolate spatial form from the institutional, economic and affective arrangements that make space usable, inhabitable and intelligible. This position changes the ontology of home. Home ceases to be a stable object opposed to displacement and becomes an ongoing spatial achievement. Camp, shelter, city and house describe different morphologies, but none guarantees dwelling in itself. Their meaning is produced through repeated practices: modifying a room, cooking, hosting, gardening, building, moving, remembering, negotiating rules, establishing alliances or attaching symbolic value to material fragments. The built environment consequently acquires significance through use and transformation rather than professional authorship alone. Spatial knowledge is distributed among inhabitants, institutions, designers, activists and infrastructures. Displacement makes this distributed authorship unusually visible because the conditions of possession and permanence are unstable, but the principle reaches far beyond migration: all inhabitation is relational, while precarity reveals the relations that secure inhabitation for some and suspend it for others. The political consequence is a displacement of analysis from abstract spatial equality toward differentiated urban capacity. The 15-minute city provides a clear example. Equal metric proximity does not produce equal access when housing costs, employment regimes, income, care obligations and mobility constraints remain unequal. A neighbourhood rich in services can intensify exclusion when its spatial qualities are capitalised into land and rent values. Conversely, populations whose labour sustains proximity for others may experience longer journeys, overcrowded housing or limited residential choice. Spatial justice therefore requires reading distance together with tenure, affordability, work and the possibility of remaining. Urban form is never socially innocent: accessibility is filtered through the material and institutional conditions that distribute the right to inhabit. The displaced housing ecosystem extends this argument from inequality to infrastructure. Housing is produced not only through buildings and official programmes but through mutable constellations of rules, vacancies, occupations, charitable resources, interpersonal agreements, municipal decisions, activist capacities and improvised forms of hospitality. Following post-eviction trajectories reveals governance as a spatial assemblage rather than a single sovereign apparatus. Formal and informal cease to function as adequate opposites because both can be temporary, unstable and dependent on negotiation. What matters is how alliances temporarily stabilise inhabitation, how people circulate among different geographies, and how knowledge of surviving, adapting and making home travels between them. The city appears as an ecology of partial supports whose political value lies in the capacities they enable and the exclusions they reproduce. This situated logic also clarifies why observation and representation are epistemic operations rather than neutral documentation. Ecologías del Campo proposes an analogous movement between the urban environment and the knowledge environment: place, evidence, representation and public return are treated as connected conditions of inquiry. Its comparison of peripheral microspaces insists that shade, vegetation, accessibility, morphology, use and experience cannot be collapsed into a single metric, just as displaced housing cannot be reduced to legal status or dwelling type. Heterogeneous evidence must retain its difference while becoming relationally comparable. The broader methodological implication is decisive: urban knowledge becomes stronger when it preserves context, provenance and positionality instead of abstracting them away. A map, photograph, trajectory, observation or testimony gains analytical power through the relations it makes legible. Socioplastics can operationalise situated inhabitation as a grammar for connecting spatial form, infrastructural conditions, distributed agency and the circulation of evidence. The corpus then functions not as an archive of detached objects but as a field in which heterogeneous traces remain linked to the conditions that produced them: who acted, where, under what constraint, through which medium, and with what capacity to alter the situation. Such a system can register not only stable entities but temporary alliances, contested categories, non-transferable findings and forms of knowledge generated from below. Situated inhabitation adds to Socioplastics a precise urban-epistemic proposition: every spatial claim is also a claim about the relations that permit a body, practice or piece of knowledge to remain operative in place.