In principle, all of my individual solutions looked good on paper and "worked" even after implementation; however, the inconveniences associated with some of the options should have been considered in the design phase. For one simple example, I chose a sleeper sofa and matching coffee table that was easily movable at night; it also worked nicely as a desk area during the day time in a small studio apartment. Initially, the solution worked perfectly, with the coffee table fitting in a closet, standing up on its end. During the design phase, I never anticipated that the dual use of the coffee table as a desk area would eventually conflict with the necessity of moving it and standing it on its end to use unfold the pull-out bed from the sofa.. On paper" the initial solution worked perfectly; in practice, that choice required moving all the "desktop" papers and other accumulated materials every night. My mistake was in focusing exclusively on the dimensional feasibility of the main components and on their intended (dual) uses individually instead of in terms of how their individual uses affected the practical necessities beyond dimensions and aesthetics.

Ultimately, the daytime configuration achieved the perfect use of space and material to provide the impression of a dedicated (albeit very small) modern...

Likewise, the coffee table was ideally suited to its dual role as a desk area, although I also failed to anticipate the degree to which comfort issues that never arise using a coffee table/desk occasionally become a limiting discomfort in more regular long-term use.
With benefit of hindsight, I could have replaced the loveseat with a smaller matching chair, which would have allowed room for a small corner desk and desk chair.

That would have eliminated the inconvenience of clearing off the "desk" to use the bed; likewise, it would have provided a more comfortable long-term work area. Admittedly, that would have detracted from the aesthetic quality of the living room configuration, but this was a perfect example of the need to better balance actual functional requirements with aesthetics and to identify solutions to minimize rather than to eliminate the aesthetic problem if doing so was not cost effective from a usefulness perspective..

Bibliography

Pennington, T. (2008). Good Design Can Change Your Life: Beautiful Rooms, Inspiring Stories. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Susanka, S, Obolensky, K. (2008). The Not So Big House: A Blueprint for the Way We Really Live. Newton, CT: Taunton Press.