Construction costs are currently skyrocketing

From 2,000 inhabitants a town, before that a village ;) that's how it is regulated in Germany... fits

Where does it say that? As I said, we now live in a place with 7,000 inhabitants. And that is not a town, but a municipality.
And the village I grew up in, now with over 2,000 inhabitants, is also not a town, but belongs to the nearest town with over 50,000 inhabitants, so it is also not an independent municipality.
There is no regulation whatsoever about from which size a place in Germany is a village, a municipality, or a town.

Where does it say that? As I said, by now we live in a place with 7,000 inhabitants. And that is not a city, but a municipality.
And the village where I grew up, now with over 2,000 inhabitants, is also not a city, but belongs to the nearest city with over 50,000 inhabitants, so also not an independent municipality.
There is no regulation on at what size a place in Germany is a village, a municipality, or a city.

Dr. Google says:
"Urban settlements are considered, for example, in the Federal Republic of Germany according to official statistics, municipalities with city rights from 2,000 or more inhabitants (small town 2,000–5,000 inhabitants, small city 5,000–20,000 inhabitants, medium-sized city 20,000–100,000 inhabitants, large city more than 100,000 inhabitants)."

Where does it say that? As I said, we now live in a place with 7,000 inhabitants. And that is not a city, but a municipality. [...] There is no regulation as to from which size a place in Germany is a village, a municipality or a city.

A city is granted its city status, or has once been granted it & may now continue to call itself a city. Google "Arnis" in the far north. Many federal states apply a size definition for new cities - 10,000 or even 25,000, to be allowed to call themselves "city." But all of that is of no significance at all - there are dead cities without anything, and living villages with huge infrastructure. And some expensive villages even have over a million inhabitants, and the largest official village has over 20,000 inhabitants.

Yes, these mentioned "definitions" rather seldom correspond to the facts, as the places have grown over decades, partly at some point already having been granted their designation, whether municipality or city, and that does not change. For example, here in the district, we have a city with 4,400 inhabitants and a municipality with 18,000 inhabitants. And as I said, the village where I grew up now has over 2,000 inhabitants but is just a remote district of the nearest city. There are other districts as well (one even with over 5,000 inhabitants) that are several kilometers away from the actual city. Officially, however, the inhabitants are counted as part of the city since the village is not "independent." In the end, all "villages" are just districts of larger cities as long as they do not govern themselves.

The regulations say, as far as I googled haha, from 2000 inhabitants onwards The own opinion everyone can have ;) but it doesn't change the "regulation" By the way, this morning I was offered a heating system (fortunately no longer looking) proactively and "the price is still negotiable" Maybe it will slowly get better again now

The classic village can be defined very easily today: No butcher, no baker, no supermarket, no kiosk, no pub... Not worth it in the village. There may be a few exceptions where a dedicated craftsman does not want to give up... But basically this rule applies. Anyone who has something like that in the town does not live in the village.