Ok WOW, I don't usually reply to this stuff but your pushing it.
While some could argue the white bunny is pandering based on the logic you mentioned, in this case it is a true artistic expression.
The city aspect is the perfect local, as as a society we are turning almost every location we have homes in to less and less nature.
Now from an art standpoint, say said bunny has a heritage in the location that is now the city. As in before the city existed, This bunny and his family would have to leave based on survivability. This is like the teenage bunny returning to visit his past, and express the loss that human society has done by taking this beautiful nature and turning it into a city, Like NYC or LA hell I can list all city's and the same is true, we dominate and kill the nature that once existed.
This bunny's expression is nothing more than say the Native Americans that fought back and got reservations to restore their lifestyle. The story behind it could be the same, Big Brother moved in and dominated and destroyed.
As for this nutty argument of what a bunny is in (white vs brown) wherever, it is a moot point. This bunny acts in contrast to portray the issue it is expressing. Hell if you want to go on your well white bunny's are in cages and not the wild ect. ect. Well consider this then, What if this is said captive bunny who has a inborn desire to be in the wild that has been restricted from him. He escaped from say an apartment in any city and portrayed his inborn desire of nature.
Again a strong stance to the taking of nature, the taking of the natural situations at hand. The bunny without Stockholm Syndrome.
Or like any teenage human child that rebels against the parents strict rules.