The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "innate" as "existing from the time a person is born", which is silly. Obviously a woman's breasts are innate, but they don't develop until many years later.
So perhaps we should define "innate" as "development without the need for experience", but this would also be silly. The color of the fur of a Himalayan rabbit is not set at birth, but instead varies depending on the temperature in its environment. But it's color is still innate.
Here's why: The Himalayan rabbit's genes fully anticipate the various environments (hot, cold) and establish the set of alternate development scenarios (fur colorings). Its genes also construct the necessary temperature detector circuitry that will trigger the various outcomes.
Innateness doesn't imply a single possible outcome. If the various development scenarios are anticipated by the genes, and if the genes establish the detection circuitry to be triggered by various environmental scenarios, then it's not gene-environmental interaction at work. It's 100% innate.
Evolution is experience with the environment, over millions of years, made manifest into the genes. Genes are historical environment. Innateness is thus historical environment interacting with current environment.