lazy scheme --> space saving?

hi

I ran into this question when I try to resolve a space issue (cross-
product is using too much memory when fully expanded as opposed on-
demand). I was thinking maybe lazyness or streams can automatically
resolve this issue. but when I look closer, lazyness don't seem to
imply automatic minimum space usage, neither does a ad-hoc
implementation of a cross-product of two streams can guarantee space
saving . It actually requires some thinking. A carefully crafted cross-
product would certainly work, but would require special treatment when
iterating. Does laziness used in the context of cross-product still
save space? I was hoping "space saving" can be addressed at the
interpreter (language) level instead of using cosumer-producer coding
style-- because I have to deal with at least three levels of nested
cross-products. Thanks.