Traveling helps you to take a new look at the familiar.

While not incorrect, using "to take" here isn't the most natural phrasing. "...helps you TAKE a new look..." is more natural, but you would be understood either way.

Traveling helps you to take a new look at the familiar.

See above

From a distance, one gains an overview new perspective.

"An overview" would be better phrased as "a new perspective."

With spatial, temporal and mental distance, one sees the processes ofrom regular life through a different filter.

Not the most natural sounding as phrased. Depending on what you meant, you may want to substitute "events" for "processes," if you mean what is HAPPENING in regular life rather than what you're DOING in regular life.

If you look at things from the distance of a journey, the hectic pace of everyday life no longer exists, t. The routines that sedate the mind fall away, and worries about tomorrow no longer intrude on your thoughts with the same intensity.

Would read more smoothly if separated into two sentences.

It is necessary to distinguish betweenThere are two momepoints during the journey when the contemplation of the old is particularly effective: at the apex of the journey and a few days after the return.

Phrasing is a fairly unnatural and convoluted in the original. If you want to stress the importance of these two moments of reflection, perhaps add an additional sentence before or after making this statement.

At the apex of the trip, it is worth asking whatich of these newly experienceds can be brought home as a lasting souvenir in one's regular life.

Original is phrased unnaturally. "...Lasting souvenir in one's regular life." Is also phrased uniquely, but this can be attributed to personal writing style, and is permissible.

ForAn example, when new routines have been establishedould be when you've established new routines.

This is a sentence fragment. You'd be better off adding it (as is) to the previous sentence with a comma, or fleshing this sentence out as above.

If you used your visits toed the beach not only to tan, but also toenjoyed swim loming lanes along the beach with great pleasure, you might want to rethink your sportsong distances as well, you might want to add that to your activities at home.

This sentence reads as written by a non-native speaker, but nothing is particularly incorrect about it. ("long lanes along the beach with great pleasure" is the oddest part out of the construction)

If natural sounding English is your goal, it may be better to restructure the entire construction of the sentence, similar to above.

Maybe it would be time toyou (could / should) go to the swimming pool twice a week after work?

Phrasing was unnatural. Could or Should can be inserted depending if you're offering a suggestion, or more of a command.

Maybe it would be time toyou (should/ could) pursue singing more at home andto develop theat talent.

Changes for natural sounding phrasing. Similar Could/Should reasoning as above.

With oOne foot you areis back in the daily routines and events, withhile the other is still in the distance, (with / and) the foreign experiences and moments ( -- / are) still very close.

Phrasing is unnatural here. If you use the WITH construction, delete the ARE, if you use AND, keep it.

The conflicts that now arise between the two worlds must be examined closely in order to draw valuable conclusions from them that can be applied to everyday life as a corrective measure.

The only thing to "draw valuable conclusions" from is "the conflicts," so leaving the "from them" in is redundant and unnatural. People will still write that though, so your message will still get across.

TheYour boss's authoritarian announcements in the office clash with the feeling of freedom ofyou had in the past weeks when one was the master of things all by oneselfyou were your own master.

There is debate on using BOSS'S vs BOSS', but either is understandable.

The construction of "feeling of freedom of the past weeks" is unnatural, and adding "you" as a subject makes things flow more naturally.

"The master of all things by oneself" is not a natural English phrase, and I believe the spirit of what was being expressed is better phrased "when you were your own master," though if being master of "things" was important, the phrasing could be altered to accommodate that.

Lunch in (stuffed canteens islunchboxes / crowded cafeterias) contrasteds with home-cooked meals with a view of the sea.

English (American English, at least) can use "canteens" for either a drinking vessel (a particular bottle used by hikers and the military), or rarely as a word meaning similar to "cafeteria" or "lunch room." I have suggested the corrections not knowing which you mean when translating.

"Is contrasted" can be used in more poetic or "flowery" constructions, but it's more usual to say "contrasts."

Maybe it's (time / the right time) to change something?

The original sentence is missing a verb, making it a sentence fragment. Adding "it is" or "it's" gives the sentence a subject and verb, and you can choose to emphasize either suggesting that it is time to change, or suggesting that this is the right time to change.

Travel helps one to take a fresh look at the tried and truusual and mundane.

"Tried and true" carries an implication of something being used for a long time frequently, and that despite it's age and familiarity, it is still the best thing to do. This implication clashes with what I'm reading from the rest of your article, where you're suggesting that travel lets you get a new perspective on normal things that you've gotten used to, but aren't necesarily the best things when viewed from that new perspective.

The words I changed it to have neutral and negative implications respectively, more accurately conveying what I think you're trying to express.

The contrasts are turned up.

A bit unnatural in its shortness. You may want to say something more about the contrasts to expand on the idea, but it can be left as is.

You can compare what is with how iwhat could be and look at possible changes.

The "what is - what could be" phrasing is more natural in English, as it has a certain symmetry in the way it sounds.

If one hurls however with too strong renewal urge intoHowever, if one charges too strongly with the urge to renew (/ change) existing structures, one runs the risk tof breaking thesem and missesing the goal of improvement.

Original phrasing is unnatural and not used in English. I offer a reconstructed version that tries to capture the same meaning. "Renew existing structures" is also not normally said without specific circumstances for using that phrasing, so "change/alter" would be a more usual choice.