The current context is marked by systemic, ecological, social, and economic crises. These are accompanied by an increasing acceleration of technological change. In this scenario, the urgent need emerges to rethink development models based on unlimited economic growth. The degrowth paradigm proposes an alternative orientation centered on principles of sufficiency, equity, and collective well-being. It challenges dominant productivist logics and promotes new forms of social organization. At the same time, artificial intelligence is emerging as a powerful infrastructure capable of influencing organizational and decision-making processes in contemporary societies, reshaping the relationship between technology, work, and society in significant and long-term ways. This contribution explores the joint role of collective intelligence (CI) and artificial intelligence (AI) in supporting scenarios of convivial degrowth. It adopts a theoretical-exploratory and interdisciplinary approach based on the analysis of existing literature and documented case studies. The findings show that AI, if designed and governed according to ethical, inclusive, and democratic principles, can facilitate distributed coordination of activities, knowledge sharing, and collective participation in decision-making processes, thus strengthening local resilience and cooperation. Within this perspective, CI emerges as the cognitive engine of community cooperation and co-creation. Time is understood as a fundamental resource that must be redistributed to enable non-market social practices such as care, volunteering, and participatory deliberation. The paper proposes the Cooperative Socio-Technical Regeneration Model (CSTRM), a theoretical framework that integrates CI, AI, time, and sufficiency as key elements of a socio-ecological transformation oriented toward collective well-being and long-term sustainability. The model highlights that the relationship between AI and degrowth is not automatic. Rather, it is deeply mediated by design, institutional, and cultural choices. The contribution aims to enrich the debate on socio-ecological transition pathways, while acknowledging the limitations related to the theoretical nature of the analysis and the need for future empirical validation, as well as further comparative research across different territorial contexts.