In countries where housing was socialized they had a system of residency. You couldn't move to another city, without a permit. If you live in Tholen, you shouldn't be able to move to Amsterdam, unless you mary someone from there or if society determines there's a social need for more workers in the capital.
After all, you can't socialize things while maintaining bourgeois concepts like "freedom of movement". You can't eat the cake and have it too, right?
Sure, maybe not everyone will be able to live smack in the center of Amsterdam, but there’s enough space in other parts of the city, not to mention nearby places like Amstelveen, Hoofddorp or Almere (which, you will know, house mostly ‘overflow’ from the Amsterdam market).
It isn't expensive to build such areas, so there is no reason not to do it except if you want to punish the poor.
The key is which ones insulate the giver (landlord/lender) from non-payment (e.g., which are guaranteed by the government).
In the aforementioned situation, the home owner is both creating equity and saving 25% extra each month.
It creates a very broken situation. But the Dutch government has coddled home owners for four to five decades already. And the real estate market is often zero sum, where advantaging one group disadvantages another.
Time to make home owners bleed for a couple of decades. Balance must be restored.
As it is though, the social housing sector is woefully underfunded, leading to sometimes decades-long waiting lists (at least where I live, in the Netherlands).