Let us answer this one point at a time.
For this one, yes, but it's still planned.
With the last, one of the regulations is something to prevent rapid withdrawal of capital. Not saying it prevents corporate flight, but China could actually adapt to to it.
The rest? Sure, although I'd point to two things.
A. China actually has been pumping resources into things like alternative energy, beginning its path towards fighting ecological damage. (1)
B. For the cheap labor, Neo-Liberalism doesn't provide better. Capital Flight can't be prevented through market freedom, it requires statist intervention to create better investment for it. One of the reasons Africa, for example, hasn't had the cheap labor flux is infrastructure spending. (2)
I'd note however you haven't touched on either South Korea or Japan, both of which extensively used economic planning to get where they're today.(3)
I'd hardly call it "wasted". It was a decade of shocks that imbalances the economy (something predicted by the Chicago Boys, BTW), but it resulted in a sustained growth in the period 1986-1998, with a decceleration in the rate of growth from that period onwards.
But, what has Chile done? Not treated its labourers as automatons, for starters. Grow at higher rates than the rest of LA for quite a while, while curbing inflation. It has survived earthquakes with relatively minor damages and loss of life that would devastate cheaply built Chinese cities, thanks to strong regulations. It has provided safe jobs for its workers (you may recall that the 33 miners had s refuge).
If you knew about Chile's economic history, perhaps you'll understand that the modern economic system has provided growth and monetary stability, whereas the preceding period, 1930-1973, was one of economic stagnation and inflation. But the AFAQ doesn't say much about it, so...
Okay, that shock theory?(4) Disproven by the 90s experiments with Russia and Eastern Europe, so I would really suggest staying away from it, as it's junk. What happened in the 1990s was that chunks of Neo-Liberalism was abandoned in favor of investment regulations in the style of China to allow economic growth. The current success of Chile owes itself to regulations on investment, not to Neo-Liberalism or to Friedman's style of economics.
For the 2nd part, this actually separates it from Neo-Liberalism, unless you're going to prove my earlier point by showing how you'll twist the definition to suit whatever you want it to mean(5), or that Neo-Liberalism isn't what allowed Chile the economic growth it has currently.
For the third, I do. I know that the recovery in the 90s came from abandoning large sections of Neo-Liberalism, and that the 1980s is called a Lost Decade for a reason. You're the one that has consistently warped statistics to support your claims, as the inflation didn't go down from Neo-Liberalism, it went down from statist intervention, along with the numerous other improvements Chile has experienced(6).