This chapter examines the evolving perception of infection control among building professionals and argues for a paradigm shift in architectural responsibility from aesthetic and energy-centered design toward explicit public health stewardship. Anchored in original empirical evidence, the chapter presents findings from a structured perception survey of 246 participants across the architectural ecosystem in India, including practicing architects, faculty, and students. Results indicate a strong emerging consensus: over 97% of respondents acknowledge architects’ direct role in ventilation control, and more than 90% recognize ventilation as critical for mitigating airborne diseases such as tuberculosis. These findings challenge the long-standing assumption that architects perceive infection control as peripheral to their professional remit. The chapter situates these perceptions within a historical trajectory, tracing the profession’s movement from nineteenth-century sanitary reform through twentieth-century energy optimization and into the post-COVID-19 re-emergence of health-centered design. It demonstrates how contemporary scientific understanding of airborne transmission reframes architecture itself as a determinant of exposure, mediated through spatial geometry, ventilation strategies, materiality, and human behavior. Beyond perception, the chapter extends into pedagogy, documenting the design, delivery, and evaluation of a 16-week elective course on infection control in architectural education. Evidence from student engagement and feedback suggests that when infection control is taught as a design problem—through tools such as Wells–Riley modelling, CFD visualization, and regulatory critique—students demonstrate high levels of conceptual understanding and professional intent. This supports the argument that architectural education is a critical leverage point for institutionalizing infection resilience. The chapter further synthesizes interdisciplinary evidence across ventilation engineering, UVGI, filtration, spatial planning, sanitation infrastructure, and digital sensing, illustrating that infection control must be understood as a socio-technical property of buildings rather than a downstream operational concern. It concludes that while professional awareness is increasing, a structural gap remains between ethical recognition and operational competence. Addressing this gap requires curricular reform, regulatory evolution, and a redefinition of buildings as active public health infrastructures rather than passive containers of human activity.