If I recall correctly, East Germany had a sort of time share system where people didn't own the property, but they had access to it at certain times. So everyone basically had a vacation home to visit at some point.

I may be misremembering, and they might have built large resorts that could facilitate large amounts of people. Either way, people universally got to visit these things and had the time to do it.

Someone else says lottery, but realistically it is probably going to be money. Socialist systems (transitory as they are) generally still use money to some extent, and people that have specialised necessary skills often do get paid more (e.g. in the USSR, professors and engineers got paid more than janitors and politicians, Blackshirts and Reds somewhere). They can use this extra money to buy beachside property or exotic imported goods or services. What they can't do with it is appropriate ownership of productive tools from the people actually using those tools (e.g. factories, phone banks etc).

I think beachside property is a good case study because it is desirable but will always be at least somewhat limited, especially as our view of the socialism we want becomes more green. People that hypothetically work near beaches would also have some priority (dockworkers, fishermen etc) depending on the region.

Obviously, there are socialist societies (real and imagined) that do away with money at the outset, but I think overall this answer has wound up being the best.

In a socialist system? Money. People with more demanding or specialized jobs would have more purchasing power. That's it. That's how it currently works in most socialist countries. People with more money purchase nicer housing.

In a completely moneyless society without any notion of property ownership? A completely post-revolutionary society with altered concepts of commodities? Who knows, those people in the future would have a completely different conception for what the meaning of life is. I certainly have no idea how they'd distribute stuff. People by then might not care about living in lakefront housing, or people might have a different concept of housing entirely. People might rotate out when they stay at a lakehouse. There's no pre-designed system for this because the people in this hypothetical scenario would have different material conditions and desires than we do now. Ask an aristocrat in the year 1034 about how people in 2024 would acquire and use desirable farmland. That's how far off our perspective is here.

My only prediction is that people in the future simply wouldn't care as much. I'd hope a communist future would have much more chill people overall who might view the entire world as their home.

Lottery

The socialist version of airb&b presumably

I think the shores os lakes and beaches should be protected and no bulling should happen near them. But I guess we're a little too late for that.