A planet without biodiversity cannot sustain life; biodiversity is no longer simply virtue but essential to planetary health and human survival. Prioritising the natural world is paramount and urgent, requiring navigation beyond traditional typologies. Governmental actions remain inadequate within planetary boundaries, hybrid and citizen-led initiatives become crucial in engaging planetary futures and distributing opportunities. In Appropriate Technologies (Patnaik et al., 2019), we unpack Ecological Citizenship-driven (Phillips et al., 2024) design propositions for diverse audiences—designers, strategists, technologists, and citizens—yielding tangible insights from live experiments. As environmental challenges are expedited, interdisciplinarity becomes vital in crafting innovative design proposals. Uniting traditional ecological knowledge with emerging technologies offers new pathways to resilience and regeneration (Whyte 2013). Authors critically analyse contemporary design-led technologies, illustrating a paradigm shift from extractive practices to regenerative methodologies. Examples span established case studies and innovative, UKRI pilot projects. Prevailing perceptions often depict technology as inherently oppositional to ecological sensibilities and behaviours. This perspective overlooks the potential of technology to act as a catalyst for ecological restoration and resilience (Rakova et al., 2023). Challenging this binary opposition, our examination seeks a perspectival reorientation towards technology as integrated within Ecological Citizenship, suggesting a new mode of technological engagement deeply embedded in its ecological and social contexts. This reorientation is further developed and articulated through specific design tools and principles, exemplified by case studies indicating preferable future trajectories for technology creation, deployment, and governance. By embedding regenerative principles into technological innovation, we advocate shifting from short-term efficiency to long-term planetary stewardship. Exemplifying case studies include: 1) The Citizens Air Complaint Program, empowering communities to actively report idling vehicles contributing negatively to local air quality. 2) Gain Forest, decentralized non-profit organization leveraging archival analytical methodologies for earth’s ecological data, facilitating transparent and inclusive environmental decision-making. 3) Experimental project AgLab, enabling farms to produce low-carbon, plant-based insulation blocks using existing agricultural waste materials and equipment. 4) Ecology of Things, innovative approaches to ecological-technological integration. Central to these case studies are design principles characterised as: Non-Extractive, 'Designed With, Not For,' Intent on Catalysing Autonomy Contextually Appropriate. Authors consider ‘technology’ not solely a logic of designed material artefacts, but as inextricably situated within a network of material, social, economic, and ecological relationships shaping their production and use; technology embedded in its planetary situation. Ubiquitous technologies like smartphones exemplify this inextricability: ore and its extraction (Jussi Parikka 2015), data centres with their physical infrastructure and extractions (Mytton 2021), online commerce portals (van Dijck, et al., 2018, p.10) and their capital flows, omnipresent signal networks (Bratton 2024), human labour and ecosystemic entanglements (Crawford 2021). Though often experientially transparent, these technologies are planetary in the extent of their presence and scale. Recognising this interconnectedness urges a shift from viewing technology as a neutral tool to understanding it as an active agent within socio-ecological systems. Appropriate Technologies provides an analysis of technology as a transformative influence on the emergence of Ecological Citizenship. It examines the characteristics of technological artefacts and processes as a means of reorienting their relationship to the complex entanglement of human and ecological systems, and reimagines the conditions structuring their behaviours and use. Our analysis finds support in theories which distinguish between instrumental and existential technologies (Antikythera 2023): those which transform as opposed to extract, tools that reconfigure our perceptions, values, and identities contrasted with those which solely engender specific, quantifiable ends. With an eye towards agential autonomy, we are motivated to initiate a move from extractive, inaccessible models of technology towards forms of technological behaviour and praxis that expand autonomy beyond ‘consumer choice’. By framing technology within ecological interdependencies, we challenge dominant narratives of progress that often ignore their unintended costs (Midgley et al., 2021). Avoiding techno-solutionist approaches that de-emphasise the role of technological praxis (Sætra 2023), we understand that Ecological Citizenship has co-emerged with technologies which simultaneously enable the possibility of understanding the same problems they produce (Gabrys 2016). To this end we are conscious of unintended consequences, perverse incentives and paradoxical solutions (Coad et al., 2020). We propose that Ecological Citizenship should not be an anthropocentric endeavor, and that this necessary feature represents a meaningful distinction from conventional categories of citizenship. Current discourses still often reflect the reproduction of ‘human values’, as with the discussion surrounding ‘AI alignment’. With this in mind, a focus on more-than-human ecologies and their entanglements across spheres of analysis (biosphere, technosphere) frames our discussion of Ecological Citizenship as it connects to increasing notions of deheirarchicalisation with regard to the centrality of our place in the world. The urgency of this reframing directly challenges entrenched paradigms that position technology as an instrument of extraction (Light et al., 2024), control (Zuboff 2019), and deterministic optimisation, operating in opposition to ecological systems rather than as an extension of them. By developing modes of technological engagement that are non-extractive, contextually adaptive, and structurally oriented toward autonomy, this framework questions the biases embedded in dominant technological paradigms. To shift the paradigms — From Extractive to Regenerative Design requires different roles. To designers, it provides a set of design tools that avoid universalist, top-down design methodologies, replacing them with an iterative, relational practice attuned to ecological and socio-technical interdependencies. This shift repositions design as a situated dialogue, enabling more responsive and adaptive technological interventions. To citizens, it offers a mode of interaction with technology that reinforces their agency within a dynamic, co-constitutive system. In doing so, this framework collapses boundaries between designer and citizen, repositioning design as a process of ongoing negotiation rather than unilateral prescription. Technological agency instead emerges through reciprocal adaptation within an evolving ecological field. More broadly, this shift from ‘for’ to ‘with’ reframes technological authorship (Almazán et al., 2024), distributing it across human actors and ecological systems in a way that resists pure instrumentalisation, proposing instead a model of technology that is entangled, situated, and generates new ecological affordances. This shift is significant not only in terms of physical assets but also aligns social and relational dimensions surrounding these technologies.