That’s a really broad question, but I’ll try. In general, the differences between the regions are most prominently rooted in religion, economics, and demographic patterns.

For example, the New England colonies were founded for religious reasons, so their governments were mostly structured around religion. As their religious fervor wained towards the end of the 17th century, religion became less of a factor in government (there’s more to it, but that’s the gist). The Pilgrims and Puritans migrated as family units, establishing a balanced gender ratio, and thus creating a more stable society than places like the Chesapeake or the Carolinas where there was often a shortage of women (in early Jamestown, the shortage of women was so severe that at one point women were brought over and auctioned off). Economically, the New England colonies were small time subsistence farmers, and were later heavily involved in maritime industries. Having a society structured around the church and economically based on small time farming led to the formation of relatively compact villages and towns.

Conversely, in the Chesapeake, tobacco was the primary economic pursuit. Tobacco requires a lot of space to grow as it is very hard on the soil—you need to rotate your crops and any one field can only sustain continuous tobacco production for around three years or so (the quality decreased with each passing season). This led to the population being spread out—large plantations rather than towns. It also led to a need for labor, filled first by indentured servants and later by African slaves. The need for labor led, arguably, to a more stratified society and racial complications stemming from the importation of slaves. Religion played a more minor role in the government of the Chesapeake.

Yet religion was a key component of any region’s identity. Virginia was largely Anglican, Maryland had a large Catholic population, and New England was filled with relatively oppressive Protestant dissenters (but Rhode Island became the first colony to offer true religious freedom). The middle colonies were much more mixed. New York had a Dutch heritage and was relatively religiously tolerant, while Pennsylvania had a large Quaker influence.

Economically, the middle colonies were a lot like New England. Settlement patterns were similar to New England, with the exception that New York City (formerly New Amsterdam) and Philadelphia became major trading centers and the preeminent cities of America.

The premier colony of the lower South was South Carolina (originally the Carolinas were a single colony but split in 1712). South Carolina was a lot like the Chesapeake, but more exaggerated. It was originally settled by colonists from Barbados and served essentially as an adjunct to the Barbadian economy—supplying Barbados with food, wood, etc. in order to keep the sugar industry thriving. South Carolina was the first colony founded with a preference for African slaves and slavery was a major component of their society. Rice became the prominent economic pursuit and large plantations sprang up along the coasts and rivers. These plantations were spread out and featured a dramatic imbalance in the ratio between blacks and whites, as high as 9-1 in some places. Most plantation owners were absentee owners, preferring to live in townhouses in the fashionable city of Charles Town (Charleston post-Rev. War). This led to a more unstable society than in New England or the middle colonies.

Keep in mind these are largely generalities and the specific development of each colony is much more complicated.

TLDR: Regional colonial development varied based on religion, economics, and demographic patterns.