For it to make any sense you really need to think through the timeline of both things and how they interact.

When were they learned and what did that process look like? If magic is just some inherent force that people can use innately, did that remove the motivation to study science? Or at least to find applied uses for science, for things that magic can already do?

What is the relative effort of achieving things with magic vs science (including the accumulated effort of discovering and researching how to do it)? Nobody is going to spend the time and money to build a scientific solution if someone can just wave their hand and achieve the same goal.

And the first questions is: how does science explain magic? What are the rules for magic, energy sources, limitations, etc

To make it interesting I think you need to have inherent limitations in magic that creates a niche for science, things that magic can't do or that is very costly for magic to do. And then once you have a reason for science to be invested in, you have to consider the ways that magic can enhance the pursuit of science. You don't need to invent microscopes if you can use magic to see tiny objects.

And then you have to consider the combinations of magic and science. What does warfare look like if you can use magic to teleport a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world? What does space exploration look like if you can use magic to create oxygen?

To do it with any kind of facade of realism is extremely complex, but presents a lot of opportunities for interesting and unique worldbuilding.