This article examines, from a historiographical perspective, how Brazilian travelers (doctors, trade unionists, journalists, engineers, and writers) perceived Soviet urbanism when visiting the Soviet Union between the 1920s and 1960s. More than simple trips, these journeys were intellectual, cultural, and political experiences. As we shall see, for many Brazilian observers, visiting the USSR meant encountering a project aimed at building a new type of society, one that was profoundly different from the realities familiar to South American contexts. The main object of their attention was socialist urbanism. Authors of travel accounts and reports – both laudatory and critical – focused on collective housing, territorial planning, sanitary infrastructure, and cultural facilities as material evidence of a distinct social order. The study thus dialogues with the historiography of transnational circulations and cultural transfers, treating the testimonies of these trips not as transparent descriptions, but as interpretations situated in specific contexts that must be taken into account when interpreted today. Upon returning to Brazil, these travelers wrote for an audience immersed in a modernization marked by profound urban inequalities, typical of Latin American modernity. The documentation analyzed (such as chronicles, letters, technical reports and memoirs) reveals that Soviet urbanism was understood as an integrated system, in which housing, health, education, and leisure were linked by a common social logic. These readings, however, were not homogeneous. Doctors emphasized the relationship between urban planning and disease prevention; trade unionists highlighted expanded access to urban services; writers oscillated between enthusiasm and bewilderment in the face of spatial standardization. The article argues, therefore, that these testimonies helped to construct, in Brazilian public debate, an image of the Soviet city as a possible horizon of social modernity, a world that was simultaneously admired, reinterpreted, and still politically disputed today.