Almost all architects today have abandoned making prescriptions for how people should live. They have learned from the mistakes of Modernism, when architects sought to construct the ideal home for the family. The now nearly universal judgment is that they inhibited the very thing they promised because their ideals failed to understand that living is a continual process of growth and adaptation. Nevertheless, many modernist homes still exist, and many are strikingly beautiful, with unique aesthetic and sculptural qualities. Of particular note are homes built in the 1960s, when a series of architects used the booming trade in concrete to create buildings of the most imaginary shapes and forms. But how can the modern family make their everyday lives in a space that is itself a work of art? How are inhabitants making homes in these complex, concrete structures? How did the family unit grow and evolve in them? To answer the questions, the most proscriptive designs are the most interesting to study. They take us beyond formal analyses and into the praxis of art, where we must rely on sociology and psychology as much as aesthetics. This article will engage these broader questions through a specific focus on homes designed by Juliaan Lampens. The research draws from archival work, literature study, on-site visits and interviews. Lampens is significant not only for the boldness of his forms but for his insistence on limiting walls and creating extremes of openness within the home. This article argues against a pure ideological critique of Lampens’ homes and focus instead on an understanding of how the homes were actually inhabited. In this way this article seeks to restore to modernism its complexity as a lived reality rather than criticize it in terms of its own formalism. These are considered alongside other architects, contemporary to Lampens, who shared similar ideas about living and building. Together these dwellings constitute a constellation that highlights the international scope and variation of Brutalism and, furthermore, brings to light the often overlooked unique sculptural qualities, forms and characteristics that emerged within Brutalist architecture. The essay focuses on two homes: the Vandenhaute home, built for a family of six, and the Vanwassenhove home that had a solo inhabitant. Lampens proposed strict regulations for those in his homes. The essay traces how Lampens developed this position to the extreme, and, in so doing, really did change how people lived. At the same time, this paper insists that architecture is part of a social world, and we need to evaluate both its successes and failures in order to better understand the potentials for future utopian design. This article is published as part of a collection on interiorities.