Máj celebrates 50 years: From shopping revolution to architectural icon
It’s been half a century since the Máj department store opened on Národní třída – a place that has, over the years, become a symbol of modern shopping, a testimony to socialist architecture, and proof that good design never ages.
When Máj first lit up its windows in 1975, it shocked onlookers. The elegant glass facade, wide escalators, and airy spaces felt like they were from another world.
At a time when people were squeezed into traditional self-service stores, Máj offered something entirely new: organized departments with a wide range of goods, where shopping was a joy. It wasn’t just a building; it was an experience.
The design was created by architect John Eisler, who, together with colleagues Miroslav Masák and Martin Rajniš, developed a structure inspired by contemporary global architecture. Máj became one of the most significant examples of Czech high-tech style.
Controversial Renovations and the Question of Historical Value
After a major renovation, which began in 2022 and cost 4.5 billion CZK, Máj reopened to the public in 2024. Today, it offers not only shops and restaurants but also an entertainment center, a historical exhibition, and a panoramic view of Prague.
However, the biggest attention is drawn by two giant moving butterflies on the building’s facade, designed by artist David Černý. Their bodies mimic the legendary Spitfire fighter plane, paying tribute to the Czechoslovak pilots who served in the British RAF.
The renovation of the Máj department store has sparked mixed reactions. On one hand, the modernization and expansion of the building's functions are praised – new shops, restaurants, an entertainment center, and panoramic views have been added.
On the other hand, some members of the public and experts criticize certain design elements, especially the moving butterflies by David Černý, which some call kitsch.
The building’s interiors have also sparked controversy, with some comparing them to Las Vegas or a casino, claiming the original architectural style has been disrupted. Heritage experts and architects are divided on whether the renovation respects the building’s historical value.
