Sorry Filip but that is not historically accurate. Cities were designed for cars after WW2, that's when highways and suburban areas were built. Most of Scarborough, Etobicoke, and North York was built after WW2 so those places are mainly designed for the car.
However, most of the old city of Toronto was designed for pedestrians, streetcars, and horse carriages. If you take a look at the 1947 map here
http://peoplemaps.esri.com/toronto/, you'll see that none of the highways are built yet, and most of the suburbs aren't built yet. The areas developed by that year were built generally for streetcars & pedestrians.
Of course some people drive, but there are also many in Toronto who take transit:
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2013/01/11/ttc_carried_record_514_million_rides_last_year.html. Toronto has a very high transit ridership actually.
What a strange thing to say, you're saying we shouldn't do pedestrian improvements until every single person stops driving (which will never happen)?
Another strange statement. Some areas of Toronto already have < 55% of people not having driver's licenses, mainly because they can't afford it, many are immigrants:
http://globalnews.ca/news/996589/map-carless-in-the-burbs/
Edit: Just wanted to add that instead of making blanket statements about whether Toronto is pedestrian friendly or car friendly, a much more accurate evaluation is that old Toronto & downtown Toronto is pretty pedestrian and transit friendly, whereas suburban Toronto is obviously much more car friendly. You can see that in the pedestrian traffic and pedestrian level data:
http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/06/the_busiest_intersections_for_pedestrians_in_toronto/