I'll comment from my rather brief experience as a 20D owner; it's a bit over half a year, but I've gone through a few lenses already.
I do shoot a lot of interior, landscape, travel & outdoor activities, then portrait & macro.
You then proceed to list various combinations of lenses, from the following selection:
1) EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5
2) 16-35 f/2.8L
3) 24-70 f/2.8L
4) EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM
5) 100 f/2.8 Macro
6) 70-200 f/2.8L IS
7) 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
First, I'd admonish you to remember that you also need a good tripod with a good head (I prefer a ball head), a good flash (I recently tried a Metz that I don't recall the model number of, it's expensive but oh-so-much better than Canon's 550EX, which I have), a decent camera bag and backpack, polarizing filter(s) for most lenses, a remote control for those long exposure shots, etc, and that this doesn't come cheap.
Then you need to consider your computer system: do you have access to monitor calibration equipment, and is your monitor easily calibrated? Are you going to make prints, and if so, are you going to do them yourself? These things cost money, too.
Now, to the lenses!
When you're going to do interior shots and you want a super wide angle, there is no other Canon way for the 20D than the EF-S 10-22. IMHO the 16mm of the 16-35 is not wide enough. Also, the 10-22 is light. I own the 17-40 f/4L myself, and while it makes nice wide angle shots, it just isn't as super wide as the 10-22. But I actually sold my 10-22 and later got the 17-40, because I don't do interior shots as much as I thought I would. You can also look to offerings from Sigma and Tamron, I have no first or second hand knowledge about these.
If I hadn't started with the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6, I'd have bought the EF-S 17-85. This lens appears to be so good, combined with a very handy weight, that it would be a very decent walk-around lens. I'd recommend starting with this one, and rather upgrading later if
you find it lacking. Bonus: if you think 17mm is wide enough for your interior shots, it's a good way of seeing whether you think it would be worth shelling out a lot more money for a 16-35 f/2.8L or a 10-22 later.
I own the 24-70 f/2.8L. I'll just have to repeat the sentiment of several other photographers in this forum: it "lives" on the camera (lens hood attached), in spite of its heavy weight. It's a very versatile lens, I just wish it had a greater reach, to e.g. 135mm. It's also sealed against dust and moisture, a fact I'd appreciate more if the 20D had been. But then the optical quality would suffer, and the 20D would make you suffer for that immediately. I like it's "macro" possibilities. While certainly not as excellent as the 100mm Macro, it's still useful enough for my toying around. This is on the recommended list for future upgrades should you not be satisfied with the 17-85.
The 100mm f/2.8 Macro is generally renowned for excellent quality. It's not environmentally sealed, though. If you want better than life-size, consider also the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo.
I'd also recommend the 135mm f/2.0L. Great for many purposes, portraits is not the least of those. I've seen the images taken by others, and I've had the chance to test a sample on my 20D. The contrast! The sharpness! The colors! The bokeh! I'm trying hard
not to just run and buy one of these before I'm sure I need this focal length. I recommend this over the 85mm f/1.8 for pure quality, and it's not a very "obvious" lens, either.
I own the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. It's heavy and it's good. I love the IS function, both for hand-held shots and tripod shots at 200mm when there's wind. I love the IS function for tripod shots when I use the 1.4 Extender II, also. In spite of the continued recommendations of the 70-200 f/4L and its potential optical superiority, I don't think I could live with the compromise. But that's how I
feel. If I wanted to get a walk-around lens with this range, I'd sooner consider the 70-300 DO IS you mention, even though it pretty clearly doesn't have the optics to match either 70-200L model. The 70-300 DO IS is light, and a fairly anonymous lens, while the 70-200L models almost scream "PRESS PHOTOGRAPHER". I get enough attention as it is with the 24-70!
To sum it up:Don't spend it all at once. Try some of the easier, cheaper solutions first. You may not get all your money back if/when you sell, but you'll get to know your equipment and what you want from it. Remember that you'll need money for other stuff than the camera and lenses, too.
As Eric, I hope that my meager experience (I don't mean to imply that Eric's experience is meager :cool:) can be of some help in your decision making process, and that the other, very knowledgeable and experienced photographers with Canon gear can add their opinions as well.