I think that the idea of having Malenkov take over instead of Khrushchev is the best bet. Khrushchev's policies were schizophrenic and short-lived. His various schemes were rarely followed through and he would often change tack half way through the issue (consider his relations with Eisenhower. One minute he's calling for peaceful co-existance, the next he's saying' we will bury you' to the Americans.)
If Malenkov can at least monitor these swings and keep the USSR moving gradually from a heavy industrial command economy to one more focused on consumer goods, it may have some more life. However, fundamentally what the USSR needs to do is ditch its Eastern European empir ASAP. If they can do so in the early 1950s they can call it an end t ooccupation and say they've helped the countries transfer to stable states. The occupation of the states cost vast sums of money and their restlessness was always troublesome.
Get rid of Eastern Europe, therefore, just don't let them join NATO, and move from heavy industry to consumer goods gradually through the 1960s.