Anticipation, or a stopped clock? Kant didn't just think that we have a built-in idea of "space", but that we have a built-in idea of Euclidean geometry. We now know, however, that non-Euclidean geometry is easily imagined, and that space is non-Euclidean. You might think it not enough so to notice in everyday life, but Saul Steinberg suggested otherwise.
I have not read Kant, though. I googled /Kant Euclidean/ to see if my beliefs about Kant were accurate, but all I found was philosophologists[1] going to inordinate lengths to reconcile Kant's ideas about space with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry and general relativity. I suppose that if someone said, "look, Kant was just wrong about this", it would deprive Kantologists of a living.
[1] Who stand in the same relation to philosophers as musicologists do to musicians. Robert Pirsig points out in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" that philosophy students actually do philosophology, not philosophy, in contrast to music students, who actually do music.
Kant wasn't wrong about our innate sense of geometry. Our innate sense of geometry is Euclidean. At least, you can't say that it isn't - because the error of our innate representation is MUCH larger than the difference between Euclidean geometry and the Universe's geometry.
I've often wished for a list of cases where philosophy has proven useful, or has at least anticipated science in drawing correct conclusions. Here's one for the list:
The June 18 2010 Science has two very similar articles on how rat brains represent space. Both conclude that the brain already represents space as a grid before rat pups take their first steps into the world. Both make the point that this validates Kant's claim that space is an innate concept prior to experience.
(The next task is to make a corresponding list of cases where philosophers made incorrect conclusions; and estimate whether the number of correct conclusions is greater than chance.)