The wealth of the world was not at all equal in any period of human history. Some areas had coal, others had iron, copper, timber, etc. Wealth being universal would be a silly idea.

The Industrial Revolution was very much dependent on colonial periods. Vast amounts of resources were required to run the factories and all the coal mines in Europe couldn't do it alone.

Colonialism's effects on the common man were very abstract, but some were very wealthy as a result of it, it just depended on what you did in the period. A man who continued as a farmer was worse off in highly taxed and tariff ridden territories, whilst those at home were slightly better off as they bought goods at the source.

Those who benefited were the middle and upper classes, a very small percentage of the population. These were the people who owned, ran and controlled the plantations and mines which created this vast wealth.

The idea of "white privilege" is mostly an idea created by the most recent wave of feminism. This is, however, less than 20 years old and breaks the rules.

White privilege as usually formulated isn't strictly about wealth disparities, although that is a component. The idea is more about disparities in power and institutional opportunities offered to people because of their skin color, due ultimately to that power differential.

While I'm not going to comment on the relationship between colonialism and white privilege in the present (I don't think I could do the topic justice) I can comment that one of the primary effects of European colonialism since 1492 (and often an explicit goal) was the creation of these power disparities between colonizers and the colonized. In the Americas, Africa, and Asia, "race" (based on skin color and a variety of social markers) was often a component of creating these power differentials. The legal protections afforded to and economic opportunities given to white Europeans were often much greater than those given to non-white, non-Europeans. These aren't necessarily abstract social advantages, but very often codified into law.

As a very basic example, the ability to own black African and their descendants as chattel slaves (as property) is in many ways largely a product of European colonialism. The racial component is largely inextricable from the obvious differences in power between white settlers and the black slaves they owned. Of course there are counter-examples, but slave-owning was largely towards the economic benefit of white Europeans and to the detriment of black Africans. In the Spanish Americas, as another example, race was legally codified and your legal privileges and social standing were largely (though not always) determined by your legally determined hereditary proximity to white Iberians.

Standard disclaimer here about European colonialism being an incredibly diverse project that covered much of the planet, so I speak only in generalities. That said, the overall outcome of European colonialism was the creation of many societies in which white Europeans and those of white European descent were placed in positions of social power, enjoying the privileges of legal protections and economic opportunities unavailable to non-white, non-Europeans.

Edit: In other words, the kind of social disparities in power we mean when we talk about white privilege in modern society are very much present in many colonial European societies and indeed were explicitly recognized through both legal and other social institutions. What the relationship is between current social disparities and these past societies is more of an open question, but suggesting some direct lineage between these past societies and the present is plausible.