Post-extractive landscapes, such as abandoned quarries, represent complex socio-ecological systems in which environmental degradation, material flows, regulatory constraints, and local development dynamics intersect. Within this context, these environments can be interpreted as manifestations of a broader polycrisis, where multiple ecological, economic, and institutional pressures interact and reinforce one another. Regenerative approaches respond to this condition by moving beyond impact reduction toward restoration-oriented value creation processes that actively contribute to ecosystem and community recovery. At the same time, the implementation of regenerative systems requires lifecycle-oriented evaluation tools capable of supporting decision-making under conditions of uncertainty, long-term dynamics, and multi-stakeholder involvement. This paper develops an analytical framework, grounded in socio-ecological and regenerative system perspectives, for the application of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) to restoration systems based on circular materials and additive manufacturing. The proposed approach structures cost evaluation across lifecycle phases, including material processing, manufacturing, installation, monitoring, maintenance, and end-of-life, and considers alternative production configurations at different scales. The study highlights how lifecycle cost structures can support knowledge integration and stakeholder coordination, particularly in configurations where monitoring, maintenance, and data-driven activities play a central role. It also emphasizes the relevance of lifecycle-based analysis in capturing the temporal dimension of value creation and in supporting the alignment of technical and organizational decisions across system phases and improving transparency in complex, multi-actor restoration settings. Expected results suggest that LCC can enable the comparison of alternative restoration configurations and provide insights into the temporal distribution of activities and responsibilities across lifecycle phases. At the same time, the study acknowledges the limitations of LCC in capturing broader ecological and social value, pointing to the need for complementary evaluation approaches. The paper contributes to the literature on regenerative socio-ecological systems and lifecycle evaluation by proposing a structured framework that integrates economic analysis with knowledge-intensive and multi-stakeholder restoration processes.