Aims The contemporary city is an inherently contradictory space, acting simultaneously as a locus for capital accumulation and a machine for the exponentially increasing reproduction of social inequalities. Within this context, the urban fabric—from infrastructure to public spaces—is not merely a neutral container for social events but a product of power relations that actively participates in shaping social exclusion. The central problem of this research is to investigate how spatial processes, policies, and decision-making frameworks transform into instruments for exercising "structural violence," resulting in the production of "anti-biotic space" for subaltern groups. This study is grounded in the premise that afflictions such as widespread marginalization and the degradation of livability in underprivileged neighborhoods are not accidental consequences of development but the direct result of structural violence, defined by Johan Galtung as harm embedded within political and economic structures. The primary objective of this research is to transcend purely descriptive analyses of urban poverty and achieve a profound understanding of the technical and specialized mechanisms within the disciplines of architecture and urban planning that lead to the systematic exclusion of the subaltern. By bridging the theory of structural violence with Henri Lefebvre’s "production of space" and David Harvey’s "spatial justice," this study aims to answer the fundamental question: How do decisions ostensibly made for modernization, efficiency, and development practically lead to the displacement of the poor and the formation of spaces where all physical and institutional mechanisms work against the livability of their inhabitants?. Furthermore, the research seeks to elucidate the explanatory role of critical theories in understanding the phenomenon of "anti-biotic space" and to formulate pragmatic strategies for transitioning from this state toward spatial justice. The significance of this study lies in its focus on "mechanisms" rather than just outcomes, scrutinizing the "algorithms of violence" embedded within seemingly neutral policies like zoning and density sales.