The chapter provides an analysis of the development trajectories of inner peripheriesInner peripheries, supported by qualitative research conducted in four Functional Urban Areas (FUAs) classified as inner peripheries. It opens with a comparative examination of the dynamics of territorial capitalTerritorial capital formation in Poland during the SARS-CoV-2SARS-CoV-2 pandemicSARS-CoV-2 pandemic, taking into account the differences between core, intermediate, and peripheral areas. This dynamic analysis enabled the identification of development trajectories of these areas in relation to more developed parts of the country and allowed for the specification of their distinctive characteristics. The chapter then presents a detailed description of the research methods employed, including content analysisContent analysis of strategicStrategic documents, surveys among residents, and in-depth interviewsIn-depth interviews and focus group interviews with local leaders. Subsequently discussed are the findings related to transport accessibilityAccessibility and its changes, this being a key development factor differentiating peripheries from central areas. Results concerning humanHuman, socialSocial, and institutionalInstitutional capital are presented in an integrated manner, allowing for the identification of their interrelations and overlapping deficits that constrain development potential. The analysis of financialFinancial and materialMaterial capital in the studied FUAs concludes the presentation of the in-depth research results. The final section of the chapter highlights the importance of the identified factors in shaping the relational development environment of inner peripheries. It points to the relationships between these factors, the relational disconnection from developmental cores, the discrepancies between strategic planningPlanning and the actual needs of local communities, and the low resilience of these areas to developmental shocks.