1. What are the three main approaches to critical design practice?
As stated in "Introduction to Speculative Design Practice," the first approach is for designers to reflect on and critically question their own design practice. The second approach is a macro-perspective, to rethink design discipline. And the third approach is to consider broader social and political phenomena.

2. In your own words, how does speculative design differ from conventional/commercial design?
Conventional or commercial design practice focuses on utility, aesthetics, established design principles, laws or rules, and the designs are created with the intention of using them or accomplishing a goal established at from the beginning of the design process. It draws on a collaborative critique, usually by peers or the intended audience. Speculative design practice considers many possibilities, can ignore or deviate from traditional design guidelines, and it's purpose is to push boundaries. The critique, as stated in the first and second approaches above, should come from the designer themselves first and foremost. This practice seems more focused on discovery and learning through reflection and questioning. Rather than being goal oriented, it is more solution oriented.

3. Discuss the current criticism of the current dominant approach to speculative practice: "Eurocentric ... excessive focus on aesthetics, tendency to escape to dystopian scenarios, vanity and separation from the real world." Based on the Food Design Speculations examples on the Lesson plan, the Project examples in the Dunne and Raby website, or any other examples you can find (please cite a couple to support your arguments, you don't have to use all of them), do you agree with these criticisms?
For the Food Design Speculations, I found a few of the designs to be very far from the "real world." My group was assigned the "Ethical Cannibals" card with the speculative design from www.bitelabs.org. I found this proposal to be very radical and unethical. As a result I was incredible critical, but that it stye purpose to this design process: to make people think and ask questions, not necessarily to propose something that can be implemented in the "real world." Dunne and Raby created a project called "Evidence Dolls." It's purpose was to be "part of an ongoing investigation into how design can be used as a medium for public debate" (http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/projects/69/0). In this way I would say that this design approach is meant for artistic purposes only. My criticism is that if the design is meant to encourage debate based on speculation (rather that realistic scenarios or facts), how effective/productive/helpful can that debate potentially be?