With in the time after the crusades I presume you mean after the first crusade and so the twelfth century onwards?

There is much debate as to why the twelfth century saw such a huge economic development within Europe. One of the major theses on economic development was by Herman Vander Wee, who claimed that from the 12th century until the 18th century, Europe knew a two sided cycle of economic development and decline.

The first side of this cycle was the economic development from the 11th to the start of the 14th century, during which transcontinental trade (over land or rivers as opposed to sea) flourished. There were several north-south routes connecting north and south Europe, most importantly the Northern French, Low Countries and North Italian regions. There was also an east-west route. Your question applies to this route: was this route established due to the crusades? No. Trade between east and west was already seeing a strong growth before the first crusade in the late 1090s. Although some historians claim the influence of the crusades on trade to be close to nothing (Le Goff famously said that all we owe to the crusades is the abricot), it surely did have a positive effect by what we call demonstration or band wagon effects. Simply put this is the phenomenon of crusaders from the west, where land was still the primary form of capital, seeing the variety of eastern goods and wanting some.

So to put it briefly, no, economic development following the crusades was not caused by those crusades. It is more the opposite: a strong economic development within Europe allowed the crusades to happen. It is not a coincidence that when European decline set in, crusades were suddenly no longer popular.