Is architecture antitechnological?
Technology is a new (discovered) way of doing things, the mechanism of experience.
It is often described as a system developed, and the way of the thing that usually brings progress.
Anything that has a system is technological.
The words that come close to the opposite of technological are unadvanced, chaos, disorder, unsystematic, but they never really describe it precisely.
The opposite of technological is antitechnological.
Imagine using a smartphone to systematically order a cab that picks you up from almost your exact location as opposed to waiting for a cab on the roadside in the olden days, waiving to the taxi under the rainy days, and even knocking on the locked taxi door to only find out that the taxi driver is not in the mood of taking any passenger.
The smartphone is said to be technological. The way to take a taxi in the olden days' rainy scenario is said to be chaos, but still, consisting of a way (but only a bad way in disorder).
In the case of antitechnological, the more you feed order to a thing, the more disorderly the effect of the thing will become.
Take urban-planning for example. When you plan a rectangular walkway with a smaller rectangular void in the middle filled with grass, you unwittingly created a restriction in the middle of the space where you cannot actually restrict people from not walking on it.
Plan a road that connects point A and point B, you unwittingly separated place C and place D with the road in between them that you do not guarantee people wanting to travel from point A to point B with purpose.
In building design, one solution introduces the other problem. Paint a building your favorite yellow color, but it gives out a different feeling towards different people from their cultural background, their recent experience, their memories, or their physical attribute (different mechanisms).
Doing design, the way of experiencing design are technological, but the effect is antitechnological.