Markets are a way of getting things done without planning. Or rather, it depends on how widely you like to use the term "market." Languages aren't planned, but they still constantly evolve and develop to suit our needs... You can call that a market (some do) but I think that's a bad choice of words. A literal market is a very abstract metaphor for the process that creates language and calling it a "market" creates a tendency to think that quid-quo-pro relations between buyers and sellers are the canonical building blocks of emergent systems. That's dangerously limiting.

Suburbs though, and built environments generally are an example of how "markets" are the extremely different from eachother depending on what they're made of.

Suburbs are generally an example (imo) of markets grafting on economic branches (the houses, mostly) onto a (mostly) centrally planned trunk, roads, infrastructures, schools, parks, etc. Suburbs take a lot of infrastructure, and at least historically it's had been a push mechanism. Planners plan/build the services required to create demand for housing rather than pre-existing residents creating demand for services.

Big city real estate markets are very often characterized by (a) land scarcity making them attractive long term investment markets and (b) a basically stationary supply side. Supply reacts so slowly/weakly to price changes that the only thing way to equilibrium is prices... usually upward. The price of housing becomes the maximum people can pay, often the maximum a bank is willing to loan.

This is completely different to the market for services, the market for manufactured goods and such.

We do a lot of planning, whether deliberately or not. Even under the most ardent anti-matket systems (eg Maoist China in the 50s-60s) we do a lot of "market." It's basically unavoidable.

However, we are absolutely terrible at intentionally planning for emergence. Creating the planned infrastructure onto which unplanned emergence can occur. We don't even have the right terms to discuss it.

Whether we like that ideologically/politically or not, or whether we're good at it... it's a big part of how society and economy evolve.

The fairly arbitrary and made up^ corporate laws, IP laws and such are a very good example. Change them and we totally change the shape of the economy. They weren't planned though, they're designed by historical arbitrariness.

Philosophically, imo, a whole lot boils down to our inability to grapple with "not sure." Hard science can. We don't know if string theory is true. This is one of the great cultural achievements of science because it isn't part of human nature.

^In the sense that if we re-ran history, we'd expect totally different outcomes.