Is it possible to challenge rebel architecture?

This post is really just a couple of thoughts on the use of architecture through politics. I understand that there needs to be spaces for the public to congregate and let their voices be heard (peacefully) whether they take place in parks, piazzas, or even in the streets. As designers I think we can create those spaces to support (peaceful) events to promote collaboration. I find it hard to determine that fine line of what these spaces can give when violence occurs. When I was in Paris in 2019, I was watching the parade on Bastille Day, and once the policeman were marching through, "yellow jackets" began to appear in the crowd and began to throw drinks and rocks, officers that weren't in the parade began to drag people away. Because I felt unsafe, my friends and I left and tried to make our way back to the apartment, as a reached my apartment, I checked snap maps and saw that the block where I was watching the parade, there was now flipped cars on fire and riot control on the streets. Fast forward to this weeks readings, I watched the video "Rebel Architecture" which made me remember that day and made me feel sad to see how we manipulate the environment to overpower others. Building walls and towers to intimidate, shaping and coloring roofs to identify what areas to bomb, fencing off sections of space so that people are confined is a violation of what architects and architecture strives to do and become. When there is conflict, architecture is always involved. As we design for the future, how can we think about the effects of war and politics? How do we design spaces that promote peace, but at the same time destroy the idea or the potential use of of rebel architecture? I wonder if architecture has the power to challenge the ideas of putting up a wall, tower, fences or this idea of rebel architecture inevitable?