Should everyday architecture be unnoticeable??

I find Margaret Crawford’s idea of urbanism & architecture interesting. In my understanding, she suggests that rather than architecture acting as a backdrop where everyday life happens, or even stopping everyday life from happening, architecture should facilitate real life to happen around it.  This evokes in my mind blank wall where murals are put up, or un-programmed spaces allow spontaneous programming to occur.  In my mind, it is hard or even almost impossible to plan everyday urbanism - that would imply architecture becoming social engineers and being able to predict human behavior because everyday urbanism is basically the idea that the environment changes according to people’s needs. However, people’s needs change except their basic needs.  

This then poses the question about architects and designers in the context of everyday urbanism. To what degree should we plan/ design the built environment? In my attempt to answer this question, I think that for architecture to be able to adapt to the needs of a society, it needs to be like a blank canvas that gets added on as the years go by. This leads to asking myself whether architecture should almost be it need to be unnoticeable but not invisible. The built environment in a way should highlight the complexities of life and everyone’s daily experiences. This, however, goes against that grain of a planned city and order that is imposed upon it because it put the power of design in the hands of the users rather than planners or designers.