It is easier to understand the geometry of linear maps in terms of matrices. Let $\mathbb{R}^2$ be equipped with its canonical base. Then all linear maps $\varphi : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}^2$ can be written as
$$ \varphi(x) = Ax $$
for some suitable, real $2 \times 2$ -matrix $A$ with respect to the canonical (or any other) basis. This is a standard (but not completely trivial) result from linear algebra and follows from your definition of linearity.
So now you can "forget" about your abstract definition of linearity and think of linear maps in terms of matrix multiplications.
Your claim, that the "grids" of $\mathbb{R}^2$ are equally spaced after matrix multiplication is not true in general. This only applies in the case of orthonormal matrices (which correspond to compositions of rotations around the origin and isometric reflection-operations).
Generally speaking, a multiplication of a vector $(x,y)$ by a matrix $A$ (if it is regular, or, in other words, if its determinant does not vanish) can be seen as a coordinate transformation from the standard base to the base, which is formed by the two column vectors of the inverse $A^{-1}$ of $A$. Geometrically, this can do several things to $\mathbb{R}^2$, including stretching the space, rotating the space and reflecting the space on a subspace.
To really get a geometric feeling for linear maps, it is absolutely essential to study several examples in depth. For example, which matrix would rotate $\mathbb{R}^2$ counterclockwise with angle $\theta$? And which matrix would relfect every vector on the origin? Which matrix would distort the grid of $\mathbb{R}^2$ (there are infinitely many)?