Does good design mean design for good?

HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- Living in Hong Kong I'm confronted each day by the delights and the diversity that architecture can inspire. The spectacular skyline of central Hong Kong encapsulates all the power, wealth and initiative that the city is built upon; I can take a walk through the concrete canyons of Kowloon and the high-density towers drip with life, stories and intrigue.

When it comes to preserving its architectural heritage, Hong Kong is famously unsentimental, tearing down blocks of old Chinese building in favor of lumpen tower blocks, reflecting not just the high cost of real estate, but the high-pace of life and the adapt-or-die mentality that drives the city.

Buildings are not just the everyday furniture of life then; architecture, as historian Joseph Rykwert says, acts as a "metaphor for society."

The texture of a city is important, but it's clear that buildings have a far greater impact beyond the visual, with estimates that buildings contribute over 30 percent of total global greenhouse emissions.

During the sticky summer months Hong Kong's addiction to air-conditioning goes into overdrive; on a morning walk through the city you can see frost forming on the inside of windows.

Rather than being a cause of our energy concerns and climate change, design and architecture can have a positive impact.

Today, architects designers and engineers charged with constructing new buildings or even whole cities have even more to consider than just how energy efficient or attractive they are.

But what do we mean by good design and does it necessarily mean it is design for good?

It's the key question that will be discussed and debated at the second Principal Voices debate in Singapore on July 9, hosted by Michael Elliott, international editor of TIME Magazine, and CNN's Michael Holmes.

Designers and architects across the world are embracing the challenges of improving our urban environments but how important is the social element in the equation? From ensuring public spaces in cities to providing essential services for those most at need, what is the best way to achieve this?

Already tackling the issues of sustainable design with the immediate needs of people at its heart is Cameron Sinclair, one of the Principal Voices who will be at the debate.

Executive Director and co-founder of Architecture for Humanity, Sinclair is committed to devising solutions to disaster struck areas, most recently Myanmar after Cyclone Nargis.

Improving lives takes precedent over improving cityscapes, but can the spectacular be married to the sustainable? What place is there for superstructures and signature buildings if they don't address the key issues of the community?

It may be easier to achieve harmony if you start from a blank slate, and new eco-cities could be one method.

Fellow Principal Voice panelist Peter Head, will also be in Singapore, and is the master planner of China's first eco cities, Wanzhuang . Its dirt roads will be transformed into a city of 300,000 run solely on renewable energy.

Can it create the balance between society, the natural environment and economics? Will it become a model for development or will it be a lonely exception to urbanization?

Joining Sinclair and Head on the panel will be Milton Tan of Design Singapore, Moses Wong of the Temasek Design School and Aw Kah Peng of EDB Singapore.

Coming from a city that prides itself on its modernity they will be well placed to tackle another point of 'Design for Good'; how can modern cities cope with improving infrastructure and reducing carbon emissions?

There maybe local solutions to each question, and innovative ideas and designs being put into practice across the world. The debate in Singapore could provide a blueprint for even more solutions in the quest for Design for Good.

Do you have a question for our panelists? If so, click on the "Sound Off" box below or fill out the form onwww.cnn.com/pv.