Your question presupposes that there was something akin to a coherent and solid Russian middle-class (non-noble, owning property, and entrepreneurial) prior to 1917 upon which one can draw a typical example. This was pretty far from the actual Russian society which was riven by multiple social and economic cleavages that were constantly shifting. Instead of a middle-class, the tsarist social hierarchy applied the term raznochinets (people of various ranks) for the growing number of entrepreneurs, professionals, and self-made men. Within the state corporate hierarchy (the soslovie system), this group occupied an anomalous position. The raznochintsy were a highly diverse lot and could be industrialists responsible for vast firms or small shopkeepers and white-collar workers (although the latter were lumped into category called meshchanstvo) Prior to 1917 there was a widespread estrangement of this social grouping towards the tsarist state. While this covers the industrial urban core, the Russian countryside also witnessed attempts to organize collectives and cooperatives among various Russian landowners (some were nobles, others fell into the blobby social mess of neither peasant nor noble) in the aftermath of the 1905 Revolution. Unlike their liberal urban counterparts, these landowners associations tended to be partisans of Russian conservatism.
Not surprisingly, the groups responded to the February and October Revolutions in different ways. The larger entrepreneurs, many of whom had found their social progress checked by the tsarist soslovie system backed the provisional government and by and large supported the policies of the liberal Kadet party. The middling businessmen and white-collar workers of the cities were more apprehensive about their support for the elitist Kadets whose policies did not address issues of immediate concern. White-collar workers in particular increasingly gravitated to the SRs and Soviets. In the countryside, the collapse of central authority meant that the landowner associations like the All-Russian Union of Landowners had to let in and compromise with the non-noble landowners. Their increasing involvement in agrarian affairs often on behalf of the conservative principles further polarized rural politics.
As to how this sundry and variegated social group came out of the 1917, the answer is rather clear: not very well. Although some white-collar professionals had skill sets needed by the emerging Bolshevik regime, the political stances held by many entrepreneurs and professionals before and during the Revolution put them at odds with the new state. In addition, popular violence against factory owners and managers (many of whom were also foreign-born) became endemic during the Civil War. This also came with the confiscation of property, the nationalization of art collections, and the police supervision of these individuals. The later support of the landowner associations for the Whites gave the Bolsheviks justification seize and break up large estates.
Even surviving the Civil War was not a guarantee of surviving the Soviet Union. Biographical background became very important after Stalin's assumption of power. Having the "right" social and political background became essential to escape the Purges and get ahead during Stalinism. Even though Stalin had affirmed that "the son does not answer for the crimes of his father," in practice the Stalinist system acted in the opposite way.
Sources
Clowes, Edith W., Samuel D. Kassow, and James L. West. Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991.
Fitzpatrick, Sheila. Tear Off the Masks!: Identity and Imposture in Twentieth-Century Russia. Princeton [N.J.]: Princeton University Press, 2005.
Rieber, Alfred J. Merchants and Entrepreneurs in Imperial Russia. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.
Weeks, Theodore R. Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.