The concept of urban interior, which denotes a space within urban space that in some form becomes private and interiorized,attempts to fill or even construct its conceptual void with the different kinds of content based on dynamism of relationships bytranscending boundaries in urban space. The concept produces its meanings in architectural discourse and practice throughpursuits concerning “the human” and an interiorized/domesticized life in the urban environment. Looking at why the disciplineof architecture feels the need for the concept of “urban interior” and how it fleshes out its content, trying to define the conceptand analyzing how it functions constitute the main theme of this study. The study, which traces the evolution of the concept of urban interior which began with its entry into different disciplines andwhich has been ongoing till today, aims to reveal its semantic repertoire through a research into its etymological and conceptualroots. Accordingly, the conditions of the emergence of the concept of “urban interior”, the epistemic foundation of these conditionsand the relationship of this diversified foundation with discursive practices produced in different disciplines are analyzed by themethod of “archeology of concept”. To this end, the discursive construct and the particular discourses within are expounded.In line with this axis of research, the study first picks up the evolution of the “public” content of modern urban design imposedby modernity, which has laid the groundwork for the emergence of the concept of “urban interior”. Next, it traces thehistorical marks, which show themselves in the form of discourse, of the concept that is expanding its content via theaccumulations of related or unrelated disciplines and disciplinary discourses. Thereby, in the final section, it tries to analyzehow the concept of urban interior space founds its discursive construction with interdisciplinary borrowings through itsfunctions, operations and connections.In historical perspective, due to the disconnection of urban space from the relations between the individual and society,modernism, modern urban planning and policies were brought into discussion with the 6th CIAM Congress in 1947. Modernurban space is unsafe and uncanny. Modern human’s inability to feel at home in the relation with the “modern home”, thecondition of alienation in Norberg-Schulz, sheds light on the alienation in urban space as well. The modern world is in turnbuilt on this state of alienation; the city is full of aliens.Is it possible for modern, functional urban space, with its configuration that evades life and human internal experiences,pleasures and desires, with its uncanny space, to be rendered meaningful and for it to retransform into a “place”? What aboutproducing familiarity once again in alienated urban space? “Urban interior” appears as the spatial equivalent to finding “thehuman” that has been lost in urban space. Departing from the desire to stay home/inside against the uncanny and alienexterior, it is the very urban space itself that is attempted to be rendered safe and reclaimed through domestication. These discourses, by which the public quality of urban space is questioned through sub-concepts such as definable, livable andsafe, have evolved towards discussing urban space in its psychological and perceptual dimensions that produce belonging andfamiliarity that render it “room-like”, make it behave “home-like” and produce a feeling of “coming home”. On the sociologicalaxis, the diversified spatial productions of urban space, such as urban niche, city lounge, urban surface, the community livingroom etc., appearing with the metaphor of urban room have been tried to be defined by derived words received from interiordesign. On the other hand, on a conceptual ground where the distinction between interior and exterior goes beyond physicalboundaries, the fact that this act of blurring the interdisciplinary boundary performed by the discipline of urban design has gonebeyond the traditional and complementary relationship that the concept of “interior space” (now defined as more than theopposite of exterior space) has formed with other disciplines has enabled a new debate. This rhetorical transformation hasproduced a hybrid field of application at the intersection of urban design and interior architecture.Different disciplines construct the content of the concept of “urban interior” differently and with their definitions that sever theconcept of space from physicality and that discuss interiority beyond boundaries, base their discourses on dualities. Theconcept, which is trying to find its place in various intersections by means of dualities such as interior/exterior, individual/ social, private/public, formal/informal, temporary/permanent and physical/perceptual in order to transcend conceptualboundaries, necessi