Parts of the Roman empire did during the fifth century. I'm most familiar with the situation in Britain, where cities and rural villas (which were centers of both Roman administration + elites, and industrial-scale production) were abandoned over a period of a few generations. In many parts of Britain, the economy returned to pre-Roman agricultural models (in some cases, the actual field boundaries seem to have shifted back to pre-Roman patterns), and large-scale metal production (one of Britain's important industries in the Roman empire) was mostly abandoned.
These industries seem to have existed primarily for the benefit of the wider Roman empire, rather than Britian itself. And they were distributed from Britain to the rest of the empire on a system of ships that brought grain and other supplies to the Roman garison in Britain. Even before those soldiers were moved out of Britain (410) and the infrastructure that supported them disappeared, industry had been slowing in Britain - this was probably a result of Roman administration contracting closer to norther italy, making a far-flung island less useful as an industrial center. When Roman administration began to fragment in the west and break into smaller regional units (which became the kingdoms of the early middle ages), Britain became more isolated (though there's still evidence of continuing lower-intensity long-distance trade with the Roman world), and its industry didn't recover.
There's debate about how this affected the lives of ordinary people (see Fleming 2011 vs Gerrard 2013). Most people ended up farming in small communities which appear (judging from their architecture) to have been much more egalitarian than the centralized villa complexes of the late Roman world. But their lives were hard and short, and their skeletal remains show that even the people who appear to have been relatively well-off were subjected to lives of hard, crippling farm work (many young men had back problems by their early 20s from repeated, overly strenuous physical exertion). But this was, perhaps, life as usual for farm workers in antiquity, and Roman industry was no less cruel to the bodies of the workers who made it function.
The quality of everyday objects improved in some cases, and grew worse in others. Iron objects actually improved once Britain deindustrialized - knives became sharper and made from better steel (the Roman industry seems to have valued squantity over quality). Pottery quality decreased, because there wasn't a need for industrial-scale kilns and people were left relying on small-scale pit fired pots (which are softer). Cows got smaller, but that may have been a good thing for the families who had to feed them through the winter. Some industries that disappeared may have had little effect on daily life - elites were no longer living in heated stone houses, but it's not clear how many ordinary peasants ever enjoyed such luxuries.
If I were to draw a general observation from this case, it would be this: industry requires infrastructure both to supply it with materials and labor, and to distribute its products. In fifth century Britain, the infrastructure that had organized labor (the Roman state and army), and the infrastructure that had need of what it produced, both disappeared. As a result, the need for industry largely disappeared, and the economy re-tooled itself to meet a smaller, local demand.
Do you mean removing industry and transforming to an agrarian society like the Khmer Rouge did in the 70s when the deported most city dweller to the countryside to starve to death on communal farms or did you mean moving from an industrial to an entirely post industrial economy?
Everyone is talking about the Romans, but from my limited understanding, some of the American Indian tribes did. They had cities such as Cahokia (pop. ~40,000) that were basically abandoned.
Anyone with specific knowledge care to elaborate?
The Indian subcontinent was a thriving export center for textiles, manufactured on a massive scale, in the early 18th century. As the British established their rule in India, output and market share dwindled significantly. Perhaps because new production methods and reductions in transportation time and cost gave British exports an edge, the cost of competing rendered the activity uneconomic for Indian manufacturers.
Political considerations played a role, to be sure. The Mughal Empire was fragmenting into several competing successor states during this period. Gradually, the new political units were reunited under the banner of the East India company.
Regarding the current answers in this thread, what relevance do ancient Rome or the pre Columbian Americas have to do with industrialization?