Presence of resources when using "construct" vs "build"

Question

There are similar questions to this but I want to point out the following:

When using the word "construct", does it implies that the resources are already available?

Because when I use the word "build" I already expect that I am building something therefore I should have resources available.

Example:

"Build from scratch."

This implies that there are already raw materials to build something from scratch. But if you substitute "build" to "construct" the phrase feels lacking.

Another thing to point out is that you can "construct" from nothing. Because in other questions they said that we can use "construct" for abstract representation of making something or making something from non-existing/non-physical entity.

Answer 1

When using the word "construct", does it implies that the resources are already available?

No, all it means is the action of building. There may or may not be readily-available resources. Of course, we know from experience that we are surrounded by resources. So, unless the context indicates otherwise (e.g., a material vacuum), the unstated assumption is that resources are available somewhere. As to how accessible those resources are is an unknown and dependent on context.

"Build from scratch." This implies that there are already raw materials to build something from scratch. But if you substitute "build" to "construct" the phrase feels lacking.

The meaning of the phrase comes from the word "scratch," not "build." You can replace "build" with any other synonym without changing its meaning. I think the reason "construct from scratch" sounds awkward is because it's more wordy and less idiomatic.