The post WW2 mechanisms do no more work; the unregulated rise of fiat credit money of private commercial banks, starting in the mid 1970s, has created a 'virtual financial economy`. This money monopoly plays the age old landlord's game, i.e. land (location of real estate, natural resources) is used as banking collateral, liquidity flows not into economic productivity, e.g. job creation, affordable housing, preventive health, professional education. This extreme re-/depressive economic behavior is now accelerated by exponential knowledge automation (disruptive technologies). Another entropic factor is rising energy consumption. A new societal deal must be worked out, something like a capitalist welfare system, but not by central command, which is now dominantly the case.

A new IEO , in economic and political terms, has resulted in the complete economic and political hegemony of transnational mega - corporations and financial conglomerate . In each of the largest economy in the world  U.S, China, and Germany, economic growth rates are far smaller compared to the level at which these countries have become accustomed. Globalization and free trade are blamed for the job loses of hundreds of thousands of workers even more in many advanced economies , wage cuts... etc. The new IEO is now in a state of continuous change, for several reasons. Many countries, led by China and Russia, despise the United States and its "leadership role". Also, significant number  of Americans is so tired of this. Additionally, new technologies change the distribution of power and influence more and more .

I think that the current economic order does not resemble general equilibrium model from neoclassical economic theory. If there is an intention to arrive to it, there would be still a long way to go. But if the intention (of those who can influence that) is something different, then the present economic theory does not describe it.

The main principles of economic theory (in fact, they stimulated transition to market economy among post-communist countries) say that in a competitive environment there is the work of invisible hand and welfare maximization. Before we thought that only monopoly is a problem and thus we need to regulate it. Nowadays, we understand also the presence of many externalities, not only environmental, that bring additional inefficiency. In my works I try to reveal those cases.

Besides that, we enter an era of information revolution and artificial intelligence that make the things worse. We are under pressure of increased marketing not only from firms but also from social networks. Too much information, high complexity and influence on our emotions by marketers does not allow us to make rational decisions (even for "homo economicus").

Finally, we live in an environment of "bad money". After departure from gold standard they no longer serve as "numeraire", many commodities are subject to bubbles, which leads to chaotic change in values. To summarize, the present economy reminds very little some steady state.

From a individual economy perspective, no longer have any other choice than to accept a new reality and open itself fully for international trade and investment...

But , the idea of an IEO generated as a political project is far from its full realization, because with the forces of globalization, the opposing forces of differentiation, political intervention and resistance are strengthened.

When I saw the question, first I thought you referred to the "New International Economic Order", suggested by developing countries in the 1970s, culminating in the non-binding UN General Assembly Resolution entitled "Declaration for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order" (1974, A/RES/S-6/3201). Then I realized that you meant a new world order perhaps along the lines of Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992). In any case, neither the "socialism" of the former and the "liberalism" of the latter created a stable "world order". It does not mean, however, that we would not have a world economy with institutions such as the WTO looking after the respect of basic rules. This world is very imperfect, especially in terms of dealing with the most blatant inequalities. Nevertheless, the question is if a world without the current international rules and institutions would be a better place or not. We do not know. (Of course President Trump claims to know that it would be better at least for America, that is why he tries to walk away form international treaties, ranging from NAFTA to the Paris climate accord. The results are to be known only in the long run.)

If you compare free market economy (US as a sample) and social market economy (e.g. Germany), you will see that maybe free market is main model over the world but in Europe (EU) social factor has a big influence on a develop path. I can agree with you that "The bulk of the old socialist world is absorbed into the capitalist world economy through the processes of deregulation and liberalization", but see for the last changes in Hungary or Poland. We can observ a reversion of many economic ideas.

Current transnational order without any organized central power is in need of governance. An effective system of governance of global markets must go beyond mutually exclusive territoriality and sovereign authority. For this to happen, the concept of a society must be re-conceptualized in terms of relational rather than geographic concepts. Society and politics, which are only partially globalized, are lagging behind globalized markets.

To build a little bit on what Yuri Yegorov has already mentioned I't like to point out that this question implies that there actually is some state of completion with regard to economic (or any other kind of) order to be achieved on any level of looking at things - which in my view is at least problematic.

Taking aside complexity theory, systems theory, field theory, institutional theory, actor-network theory or any other more process-oriented way of understanding 'the social' that takes paradoxes and contestation as normal order of business (figuratively speaking), even the concept of equilibrium isn't as fixed as we often take it to be. From my knowledge the concept originates in the postivist project to translate the metaphor of biological ecosystems into human contexts, through which they could acquire the features we usually ascribe to the nature such as object-like character (objectivity), persistence and therefore predictability. The core of ecological theory however is built around the constant tension between commensalism (competition) and symbiosis (cooperation) that creates homeostatic (self-regulating) arrangements as long as something (e.g. shocks) does not knocks it out of the rythm causing smaller or bigger changes in the whole ecosystem - hence Darvinian evolution.

Therefore epistemologically speaking, until we don't know the future (which we can't) I believe that the question about completion of world economic order is asked wrong because it cannot really be answered "yes, it is" within it's own premise. I also hope it can't really be answered "yes" in any other premise, as it would be the gloomy outset for the future when thinking of current state of unjustified inequalities, hierarchical pecking orders, oppresive power relations, environment devastation, erosion of public and interpersonal trust or economic symbolism, saying that it is ok to be egoistic narcissist since it is our nature (which I don't believe was meant by neither Hume nor Smith).