Application development in squeak Vs. Squeak development.

In using all of the Squeak tools (find implementors, senders, refactoring 
browser, ...) I find that they all operate on the global squeak image 
collection of classes, methods, etc.

As an application developer (as opposed to someone working on the Squeak IDE 
itself) my methods are one of:
  1. intended to connect into the large Squeak world
  2. produced and consumed entirely within my application
where "My Application" is typically some class categories, or perhaps a Mcz 
package.

The big problem is with #2 (to a lesser extent #1 as well): I need the tools 
to operate on a smaller defined scope of "My Application" and cannot find 
any (simple) way to do this. Examples:

- I want to see all *my* implementors of #printOn: but need to browse 
through the list of all within Squeak. Needless overhead.

- I want to rename *my* method #removeChild: but if #removeChild is used 
*anywhere* else in the image I cannot do it without affecting all the 
implementors. Period. I come to a dead stop with that refactoring.

I know all things are dynamic in Squeak and you don't know who will call 
which implementation. I just want a way for me to say: "Please scope all 
tools searches etc. to *My Application*. Trust me. I really do want to 
ignore all others".

One easy way to define scope: just limit scope to what the current browser 
is working on (which raises a separate problem, as more narrowly focused 
browsers seem to get second-class attention compared to the global System 
Browser).

Are these observation accurate? Reasonable?

Why is this? It seems this aspect of squeak tools are oriented more to those 
who develop squeak itself, rather than those who develop applications.

Thanks - Sophie