The thesis is to be about the first deeper glance in Lithuania issueing the place image throught architectural and cultural heritage management. The key factor is to challange the paradigma of how individual or scietist perceive architectural processes due side effets of changing World. Nevertheless, cultural heritage in Lithuania has a feature in academical field to be self-centered so hardly ever usefull for wider sociocultural progress if we consider that tourism or old town vitality is based not on heritage management itself, but depends on traditionally perceived which are the best routes for tourists or traditional area of walking around. This issue claims that in so called network society the most important is to recognise the possibilities and threats for architectural heritage to become an actine participator of network progress. It is clarely seen, that internet technologies and communicational options is to be elimate a traditional urban space out of field of public interest. However, city image is about to sell a place no matter in digital or either in real dimentions. Master work is solving the issue how the Kaunas could work and produce its image via architectural representation‘s forms and manners. First part of work is to describe early perception of place image in western countries. As a matter of fact, there‘s notice made that place image should meet an expectation. Since public realtions have became part of everydays expeirience and its self being expressed by working and producing knowledge based product, place image is a wider connotation of urban regeneration. Second part discusses how Kaunas city uses its own architectutal potential to produce place narratives. Also, I point out the problem of own and foreign heritage which, however, while is being in argue status, can work for public benefits. I also form some case studies based advises how to enhance soviet cultural heritage in Kaunas city. Third part is all about constructing or constructed place narratives in Kaunas. The main issue there is a rapid will to become ‚contemporary‘ while cultural heritage‘s not being preserved. For conclusion, it has been noticed that Kaunas still uses only historical pieces of architecture to construct its contemporary narrative and has been living under after-industrial period but neither meet postindustrial conditions, nor some signs of wholistic regeneration are seen yet.