The fact that communism turned Ukraine into an energy-developed state does not negate the existence of regions where communism did nothing. Yes, they received benefits from communism, but the entire Soviet "machine" was working for those benefits. In other words, it is probably wrong to expect capitalist Ukraine to do what the Soviet Union did, and what Ukraine itself did as part of that union. But honestly, the scale of Ukraine's decline after the Soviet period is striking. This is a rare case where the showcase of capitalism looks worse.
Discussion
if you call millions of dead people by hunger a benefit
This famine was not only the result of mistakes by the Soviet leadership, but also, more broadly, a consequence of the civil war and drought. Ukrainian propaganda, of course, calls it a genocide, but in reality, everyone was dying from hunger there, regardless of nationality. Furthermore, it should be remembered that, historically, very soon after the Civil War, the Second World War began. The country had no time to recover, and nevertheless, Ukraine became literally a leading republic of the Union. You could boldly take Ukraine of that period and compare it with any "capitalist" Western European state, and Ukraine was no worse.
Yes, Ukrainian stores of that time, by today's standards, would have seemed overly eco-friendly — communism could not provide a wide range of consumer goods. In the best years, if a single product was available in two or three variations, it was considered good. But on a larger scale, the projects that Ukraine implemented under communism still look unique and ambitious even today. Some achievements were unmatched anywhere in the world. And, of course, capitalist Ukraine is not even capable of building a public restroom. Building a hydroelectric power station is simply impossible for them. They couldn't even complete the Soviet-era projects, and this was long before Russia began to destabilize their country.