Unlike how the Bolsheviks dealt with the Russian royal family, of course, though I know it's not a good comparison.
For example, the last emperor Puyi and his brother Pujie, only served 10 years in prison despite being a prominent enemy collaborator, and Puyi later joined the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and Pujie joined a Communist Party himself and rose to the position of presidium. Both of them were protected during the Cultural Revolution, although I don't think they had much economic privilege.
I am aware that Aisin-Gioro family held no threat at all at that point unlike the Romanov family during the Civil War, and that there were long time of transition between revolution in 1911 and 1949, but it's still very surprising that they were protected and treated relatively well....especially during the context of Cultural Revolution when everything considered 'old' were systemically purged and destroyed.
Puyi died in the first year of the Cultural Revolution (1967) and didn't live through the worst of it. He did receive threatening letters which may have contributed to his health problems. His family received special treatment for a variety of reasons. Puyi was kicked out of the forbidden city by Feng Yuxiang in 1924 (13 years after the initial Xinhai Revolution). The subsequent Guomindang government treated the Manchu minority poorly as all minorities were often encouraged to think of themselves as "Chinese" rather than encouraging ethnic identity. The Communist reversed this and established political Autonomous Regions and acknowledged minority identity. A great book on this subject is Thomas Mullaney's Coming to Terms with the Nation.
By showing favor to Puyi and his family, Mao and the Communist party could claim magnanimity in contrast to the GMD policy. Later on people such as Zhou Enlai would try to ensure that some people would be spared the excesses of the Cultural Revolution, but Puyi never really lived long enough to see how this would have played out.
Puyi was essentially a figurehead who depended on warlords and later the Japanese to push his claims. The Kuomintang had no interest in him, overthrowing him was part of their ideology and his popularity was essentially zero after ww2. He was not a rallying point for resistance and he was never in a position to become a pariah like Tsar Nicolas II.
I assume he would have been more valuable to the soviets as a prisoner, they did not have the same disdain for Japanese collaborators as the Chinese, war trials were all the rage after ww2 for which they needed him alive to testify in, the capture of such a high profile target showed the competence of the Russian army and they could later offer him to China as a small gift. Because he was so cooperative with the Soviets this might have influenced Mao's decision to keep him as a propaganda showpiece, making an emperor equal in status to everyone else fits in somewhat with communist ideology.
Apparently he was not convicted of anything serious enough to warrant his execution at the Tokyo war crimes tribunal, here is where he testified and was cross-examined. The assertion that he was a puppet crops up over and over.
http://lib.law.virginia.edu/imtfe/content/page-7-604
What he said may not have been entirely true, he may have been involved in some misdeeds, but I find it unlikely that the Japanese would have given him any real authority.
Actually it's worth clarifying the Bolshevik position towards the Romanovs. They captured them, but they did not immediately execute them. In fact they held them captive for a while and they probably did not want to risk killing them. Nicholas II actually became really humble during this time, preferring to not even be called Tsar. What happened though was the Whites were making a push towards Moscow and there was a risk the Bolsheviks were taking if they kept the Romanovs alive; the Whites would capture them which would crush the morale of the Bolsheviks and strengthen the morale of the Whites. So they were killed due to this.