Listening to Figma CEO Dylan Field’s opening address at Config 2026, I was reminded of a philosophy I was introduced to during my Masters in Architecture.

I keep rattling on about how we’re needlessly fixating on tools and technologies, which only exacerbates the existential crisis so many designers are feeling in this “Age of the Machines”. So it’s no surprise that the chatter right now surrounds the new tools they launched — and how AI fits into the mix.

But I find it more interesting to read between the lines in the release notes. The existential crisis abounds because we’re fixating on the toolkit, rather than contemplating how we could bridge that technological layer with the underlying aspects of craft that have driven our creative agency since the beginning of human-driven creative expression.

What really stood out to me was the notion Figma posits: that “code is a material.” That it’s another surface we can use to express our creativity. If we dig beneath the surface, I see an interesting thing emerging in the product design space that architecture has, to some extent, been grappling with for aeons already.

Figma’s “code is material” maps to an older philosophy — “total architecture” from Ove Arup. Arup was a visionary engineer and founder of the world-renowned built environment consultancy bearing his name. He advocated for breaking down domain silos, integrating engineering, architecture and aesthetics in the spirit of co-creation, of working together towards a single goal: beautiful, user-centered solutions. Total design removes the boundaries, blending traditional roles into a single philosophy, potentially flipping the script, where engineering can be beautiful, and architecture could be technical.

When we compartmentalise the priorities, we create division. But fundamentally we’re all working towards a singular purpose, just from different angles. The Canvas represents the perfect space where these two seemingly disparate worlds can meaningfully collide, and I’m so glad that Figma returned their focus to this space once more. And presented the vision of something that brings “total architecture” to life through the very act of making.

In product design, just like in other multidisciplinary domains, we often delineate design and development as distinct silos — shaping belongs in one domain, and execution in another. But the reality is not that clean. Sometimes the form can be found in the execution, sometimes the technicalities can be surfaced on the canvas. When we reframe the idea of code as a material that we can shape, manipulate and use like any other creative matter (a line, surface, light, texture…) it suddenly opens a new perspective on the whole agentic discourse. Instead of mindless prompting, Figma is presenting a vision of how we can reclaim our creative agency, moving further and not just faster.

I find it fascinating how Figma is attempting to bring this abstract, foreign, sometimes frightening concept closer to the realm of design by choosing to shift the thinking and framing of what code is. For a while during this burgeoning era of AI-assisted (assisted used lightly there) creation, the prompt box has been the primary interaction surface. A shortcut. A magic genie that just makes and makes and makes and becomes almost addictive, creating this infinite loop of co-dependance, at the expense of our individuality and design voice. Code was still seen as the “other”. The thing that sat next to design, rather than what it truly is — something intrinsically part of it.

Code being a material speaks to the idea that at its core, design encompasses a wider realm than just what the thing looks like. Code as a material gives us another dimension to shape feeling and emotion. When we step outside the prompt box, when we consider that the muliticoloured lines of text actually are a design asset in their own right, and when we bring that thinking back to the design canvas, we come closer to that vision of “total architecture.” That notion might even be extended — because unlike the built environment, the digital landscape is boundless, the multidisciplinary playing field becoming increasingly more level.

Of course, I’m not saying designers must become builders. That’s a dangerous slope to slide down (and something I want to tackle in another post). What I’m getting at is: instead of the traditional view that code is an implementation mechanism used to bring static mockups to life, if we consider it as a material, a design tool, we can embrace code as an additional surface to explore creative expression. Agentic AI has just made it a lot more accessible, and having it live on the design canvas further compresses that space between thought and reality.

The existential quandary abounds, perhaps even more so now that code becomes another surface for us to play with. But thinking of it in this aspect gave me a newfound perspective on the evolving nature of the designer, and the tools and materials we use to shape our ideas.