There are a couple ways to talk about this topic. One is a straightforward survey, such that is is possible, of what I guess I'd call clock density. I'm not sure such a precise study exists, but we do know that in the 14th and 15th centuries mechanical clocks started to be more present in Europe. Certainly by the 18th century they were becoming far more common, but I really don't have any idea how I'd measure how many people could find a clock within 5 minutes of their home.

The other way to approach this question is at what point in history did measuring time precisely start to be something the average person either did or had to care about. This is an interesting question and is largely tied to economic life. There is some good work on this topic. It's a topic that has interested historians since at least the 1960s, which has a lot to do with the rise of interest in social history.

E.P Thompson's work is probably the standard on this topic and is definitely a classic. His article "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism" published in Past & Present No. 38 (Dec. 1967) 56-97. Thompson contrasts a notion of time that revolves around time-of-day dependent work with the more rigidly scheduled work of industrial capitalism as it arose in the 19th century. Thompson calls this "task-orientation" and he says it has 3 key features:

"First, there is a sense that it is more humanely comprehensible than timed labor. The peasant or laborer appears to attend upon what is observed necessity. Second, a community in which task-orientation is common appears to show least demarcation between "work" and "life." Social intercourse and labor are intermingled - the working-day lengthens and contracts according to the task - and there is no great tension between work and 'passing the time of day.' Third, to men accustomed to labor timed by the clock, this attitude appears wasteful and lacking in urgency." (60)

Of course, there is a relationship between "labor timed by the clock" and the actually presence of clocks in peoples' lives is relevant here, but the relevant location there is not the clock at home, but rather the clock at work. This is due to another observation that Thompson makes: "Those who are employed experience a distinction between their employer's time and and their 'own' time. And the employer must use the time of his labour, and see it is not wasted: not that task but the value of time when reduced to money is dominant." (61). With that relationship in mind, clocks dominated and structured time in the context of early industrial capitalism precisely because of the needs of employers hiring laborers in a capitalist system. Insofar as time spent at home was less "valuable" when reduced to money, clocks were less relevant even when present. Thompson admits the difficulty in tracking the spread and prevalence of clocks, but notes that their spread did increase not just incidentally alongside labor under industrial capitalism. Clocks were needed to enforce labor-discipline and Thompson argues that this was not merely an artifact of a particular historical moment but actually changed peoples' relationship to time. "In all these ways" he argues "by the division of labor; the supervision of labor; fines; bells and clocks; money incentives; preachings and schoolings; the suppression of fairs and sports - new labor habits were formed and a new time-discipline was imposed." (90).

Notice here that Thompson argues that new habits were formed. This transcended the imposition of employers and bosses and actually changed the way people habitually related to time. Consider how you yourself consider time - it is not merely the presence of clocks that makes pay attention to it. Indeed, you might even feel apprehensive when you're not near a clock, watch, cellphone or the like because you don't know what time it is. You might feel this even when you have no particular reason to need to know the time right at that moment.

Of course, this is all very classic Marxian analysis for which Thompson is known and is a great example of why historical theory helps shape analysis for people who are interested in that kind of thing. According to Thompson have the material, economic conditions of life influence society, culture and habits in the population. This kind of historical materialism is central to Marxian analysis and this is a case where that theory really shows its worth. Perhaps in what appears a bit too on-the-nose, in light of my comments, Thompson ends the article thus:

For there is no such thing as economic growth which is not, at the same time, growth or change of a culture; and the growth of social consciousness, like the growth of a poet's mind, can never, in the last analysis, be planned." (97)

Many old town squares (I am thinking Europe, etc) have clock towers that not only display the time, but sound the hourly bells. Related question: the rise&fall of that type of architecture (that was a necessity at one point, not just a decoration)?

Further question - Were church clocks and bells significant in people's time-telling for a long time? We also best of school bells and factory whistles - would these also be a substitute for individuals having their own clock or watch?