Disasters triggered by natural hazards and their subsequent recovery processes inevitably transform landscapes in varying degrees. This paper explores two Indonesian cases, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the 2010 Mt. Merapi eruption, to show how post-disaster spatial arrangements often reflect a classic dichotomy of nature and culture. The production of disaster-zone spaces as widespread post-disaster spatial planning is based on an uncritical separation perspective of nature and culture. A disaster-prone area is an abstract space where nature is dominant, hazardous, and therefore unsuitable for humans. From an integration perspective, avoiding such hazardous places should be contextual, which is only possible if humans understand the rhythms and specifics of the natural processes. While post-disaster human settlements reveal a tension between restoring former taskscapes distribution and focusing solely on living spaces, leading to complex cultural changes and multiple-distracted landscapes. Despite criticism of the nature-culture dichotomy (e.g., Haraway 1985; Latour 1991), this paper demonstrates that this dichotomy persists as an ideological foundation for certain practices and hence cannot be dismissed through conceptual analysis alone. Boundaries between nature and culture may exist, differentiate nature and culture, but simultaneously facilitate and encourage communication between those two spheres. Rather than viewing the nature-culture distinction as an ontological state, a semiotic approach should recognize the diverse relations between nature and culture across different cultures. Ecosemiotics, which posits that human-environment relations are fundamentally semiotic, allows for a nuanced reconsideration of nature-culture ties in the context of natural disasters.