Regarding infrastructure, I would argue if the internet is going to be that extremely censored, it would make sense to create a new network. Now, this is going to be off-topic, but I thought about it a few times so far, here are my thoughts. Maybe idea for a new topic 
It is trivial for any governments to have blanket radio jammers above certain areas. If the government were to be banning the internet, of all things, then I would expect them to also restrict any radio transmissions as well. The benefit of Bitcoin is that the internet is a common tool used world wide. Having to install radios to just use Bitcoin exposes the user, in the sense that it is obvious that they're using Bitcoin, triangulation would be easy as well. If it comes a day that the internet were to be shut down, it is possible for Bitcoin to be shifted to another medium but at that point, it just becomes a cat and mouse game.This would necessarily require some trust in the user and/or device used. Obviously, a tampered-with device could simply double spend a number of coins. However, if the users involve trust that the hardware device is not compromised (perhaps because the company making it has a good reputation for making them secure), it should be possible to make offline transactions. If the company (or a government) goes further to deter people from double spending (either via tampered-with devices, or counterfeits), it could bolster trust in it further.
But basically, you could timelock coins into a wallet where they aren't spendable until a later date, and when you want to pay someone, you give them a transaction that gives them future ownership over those coins. The additional counterparty risk might be acceptable for small amounts when internet isn't always available. Whenever internet becomes available, the commitments could theoretically be cemented at that point to prevent any possible future double spends.
It would be synonymous with a completely separate token rather than using Bitcoin. I would either go with precious metal at that point in time, or a physical Bitcoin but even the legitimacy of that is disputable. Transaction finality cannot be guaranteed by any organization, and the trust lies on the company making them which is a central point of failure. The problem with timelock is that there isn't a commitment involved, unless the recipient spends the coin to another address that they control. Trusting someone on signed and unbroadcasted transaction is not safe, and arguably even worse than accepting zero-conf transactions.But basically, you could timelock coins into a wallet where they aren't spendable until a later date, and when you want to pay someone, you give them a transaction that gives them future ownership over those coins. The additional counterparty risk might be acceptable for small amounts when internet isn't always available. Whenever internet becomes available, the commitments could theoretically be cemented at that point to prevent any possible future double spends.