As society (never-ending) progress advances, the search for a growing optimization of the whole building project lifespan (design, construction, and maintenance) has, somehow, been placing digitally-driven technologies evolution as prime-keystone actors in design and construction fields. However, if the advantages that these (always evolving) developments, machineries and softwares bring to building research-practice remain indisputable—namely regarding production, coordination and communication processes –, the (often widespread) notion that these new tools and procedures constitute, “per se”, the core-driving elements in fostering a well-designed project, (still) seems fairly questionable. Based on these indications, this article focuses on the mid-twentieth century British architects Alison and Peter Smithson, to discuss a different perspective: in short, shouldn’t the quest for an optimized ‘integrated design’ rely, firstly, mostly and inevitably, on the designers’ correct conception-approach? Long before the (currently trendy) ‘Industry 4.0’, this article argues that, in establishing the right fundamental principles from the very first level of the design-process (such as building rationalization, or sustainable concerns, among others), the Smithsons may be regarded as a past-historical model of tackling the ‘integrated’ philosophy in the proper way—it is the designers accurate purpose-intentions which (first) model appropriate ‘integrated’ methodologies and instruments, and not the other way around. By driving attention to their thinking-practice, and critically surveying their archives, two of their most renowned works (the Economist, and Robin Hood Gardens) are (predominantly) addressed, essaying that their “project-theory” may constitute a true cornerstone disciplinary source for a correct ‘integrated project design’ approach, which is still valuable today.