Recent urban space development prompts us to think of new smart urbanity in terms of a hybrid environment, where traditional forms of physical and biological interaction blend with patterns of digital embodiment and AI-driven agency. On the experiential and social levels, there is good reason to expect these hybrid urban environments of the rising smart cities to promote safety, efficiency, and creativity. While these values seem positive, they are achieved at the cost of the inhabitants’ intimacy and privacy. As reported, this breeds problems of biased transparency and the surveillance of citizens caused by constant interactions with AI-powered agents. As such effects are observable at the very beginning of the evolution of smart cities, questions arise concerning the possibilities of resistance to and subversion of their dominant protocol. Notably, since most currently available concepts of urban resistance and subversion are developed with the traditional, physical model of body ecology in mind, they either fail to recognize the specificity of the hybrid environment or propose rejecting the entire digital sphere as non-human and harmful. This situation triggers serious queries about whether the dominant, and in a way oppressive, role of technology in the hybrid environments of smart cities will result in ubiquitous surveillance and conformity, or whether it will be balanced fast enough by new protocols of resistance and subversion, corresponding to the new, hybrid understanding of embodiment. Yet another option is that as dispersed, urban agency emerges, it will remove traditional discourses on urban embodiment, calling for thoroughly new approaches.