Excluding =builder , why do you think the other two are “are constructing buildings” ? I don’t see anything suggesting this. (Disclaimer: I dislike company= even more than industrial= )
The problem with this is “tiefbau” appears to be classifying by “use”. While the possible opposite “building engineering” / “building engineer” or " “architectural engineering” / “architectural engineer” exists somehow (not to be confused with UK’s Building Services Engineering for US’s Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing), it’s a less common classification to speak of. Usually it is specified as simply “building construction” . " Construction engineering" includes both buildings and infrastructures.
Fundamentally, different professions/disciplines can engage in different projects. “Engineering” companies can be classified by their role first (consultant, general contractor, subcontractor), especially as they can be qualified in multiple disciplines. The biggest companies work on both infrastructure and buildings.
The “civil engineering” academic subject or programme can include other content, eg structural, geotechnical, environmental, etc. Those would enable students to work on buildings too. Infrastructure is a signature part of “civil engineering”, but it’s not everything.
“Utility engineer” would mean the person is an engineer of a utilities company. It seems Australia has some institutes of “public works” , but that’s rather unique.
“Excavation” and “earthworks” seem to be tasks to me. They might be found for both buildings and infrastructure.
Basically, it’s not common to have an intermediate classification of “infrastructure engineering” . It is specified for electricity, water supply, hydraulic, drainage, transportation, bridge, tunnel, coastal, marine and port etc directly.
1 Like