I don't think people call Prada intellectual because it makes the wearer look intellectual, but rather because Miuccia's whole approach to design is so thought out. I remember an interview for her f/w 04 women's collection (in which she used a lot of beadwork, which is odd for Prada) and she said she put the embelleshment in deliberately "off" places, like the elbow for example, because she thought the idea of a beautiful embroidery in an area of the body that's used for leaning was an interesting clash[/QUOTE]
But people who make post-hoc justifications of Prada's pseudo-intellectuallism do so because clearly, they think the clothes mark them out to be a part of that intellectuality. 'I wear Prada, ergo my taste is similarly intellectual-like'. Let's not kid ourselves. Of course clothes are an extension of one's self. And of course people who think Prada 'intellectual' think themselves appreciative and partaking of the same type of ersatz sophistication when they wear Prada. Which is rubbish.
Beadwork at 'odd' places hardly takes brains. Any tom dick first year fashion student can place beadwork, distressing, weird extensions, etc at the oddest of places. To regard this kind of offbeat quirkiness as some kind of profundity is pretentious as to be laughable. To self-regard as profound is even worse. What takes brains to make, and brains to wear then? Westwood, whose fabrics are in eternal torsion and tension (now that's challenging). Demeulemeester in seasons past. Perhaps Raf Simons, sometimes.
Wherefore the challenge when it comes to wearing Prada? Nil. Requires zero mental acuity. Hence beloved by the uncritical public.