I don't think a softfork can do this, but then again, when the limit was lowered, it must have been a hardfork too. Except for back then there wasn't much controversy about it.
That was a softfork. When you invalidate a currently valid rule, it's a softfork, and in this case, you invalidate blocks with size > 1 MB. However, a few years after this, a
hardfork emerged.
Any decision taken by Satoshi was unquestionably followed, because... it was Satoshi. It's good that we don't have that source of influence anymore.
That was 7 years ago, surrounded by loads of contoversy, and promoted by some people with their own agenda.
It still is surrounded by loads of controversy. First things first, what's the ideal block size increase? We're agreeing on the 16 MB limit, but stompix wants it to double on every halving. Another one might think 16 MB is still very small. I can already predict that the hardfork will end up just like Bitcoin Cash; uncertainty on the ideal adjustment will encourage people to stick with the tested, conservative 4 MB.
I don't think a proper change, coming from the Bitcoin Core devs, that actually improves Bitcoin's future will be rejected.
I want to remind you, at this point, that before Bitcoin Cash, there were Bitcoin developers who supported big blocks. The fact that they split a long time ago highlights how unlikely it is for the current small block developers to suddenly change their minds.