This is a rather hard question, because what capitalism actually is isn't very clear in the first place.  And the same is true of feudualism. The terminology you use implies distinct changes between systems when what we tend to see is messiness, across both countries and time. I'm going to speak a lot here about the complexities in what people mean by 'capitalism', particularly people often regarded as fans of it, as an illustration of how complex this gets.

The word capitalism dates back to as recently as 1854, well after the start of the British Industrial Revolution and the American Revolution, so well into the period of what we generally think of as capitalism. The word "capitalism" from its start was defined as referring to something that already existed - unlike say Communism which was explicitly proposed and discussed for decades before the Russian Revolution. 

On top of this, there's multiple definitions of the word "capitalism", e.g. Wikipedia defines it as:

 an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit

And Marxists.org defines it as:

The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.

Private ownership of the means of production and wage labour are both of very long standing, e.g. Biblical stories such as the parable of the talents or the parable of the workers in the vineyard assume audience knowledge of market-based transactions. So it's not like capitalism was something fundamentally new.

And, just to confuse matters even more, economies commonly called capitalist (such as Britain and the USA since at least the 19th century) do tend to have government interventions and government production of some things (e.g. public schooling). 

Conversely even avowedly communist countries like the Soviet Union had black markets and paid people for work and the like (see this askhistorians faq answer by u/TenMinuteHistory about life in the USSR). 

So when we talk about economic systems in recorded Western history, we are mainly talking about degrees of differences, not some absolute transformation (excluding some small groups that operated for a long time on fundamentally different rules, e.g. St Kilda island in Scotland).

Meanwhile the existence of feudalism, in the sense of a distinct economic stage, is also disputed, see these two answers from the askhistorians' very-faq. (Courtesy of /u/Miles_Sine_Castrum and /u/idjet). 

Adam Smith, described by Wikipedia as "the first theorist of what we commonly refer to as capitalism" didn't talk about the word 'capitalism' in his 1776 book on The Wealth of Nations, instead Smith talked of terms like 'natural liberty'. Adam Smith was often harshly critical of the economic policies of the Western European governments of his day. For example, when talking of some English laws restricting the movement of labour, Smith says:

There is scarce a poor man in England, of forty years of age, I will venture to say, who has not, in some part of his life, felt himself most cruelly oppressed by this ill-contrived law of settlements.

Wealth of Nations, chpt X Of Wages and Profits

And the European colonisation projects  of his time he describes as follows:

Folly and injustice seem to have been the principles which presided over and directed the first project of establishing those colonies; the folly of hunting after gold and silver mines, and the injustice of coveting the possession of a country whose harmless natives, far from having ever injured the people of Europe, had received the first adventurers with every mark of kindness and hospitality.

(Chapter XI: On Colonies)

Adam Smith's critical stance towards government policies is a stance continued forward to the present day, free-marketers typically criticise many aspects of the economic policies of their governments for failing to be free-market. 

Meanwhile on the left, we have Marxists, openly critical of capitalism, and people like John K Galbraith, who critiqued the actual operation of American society. 

I kinda feel sorry for capitalism writing this up, no one defends it. Even people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand used the term 'capitalism' mostly because of how it's criticised, not because they approved of every feature of the US economy of their times. Ayn Rand even wrote a book titled "Capitalism: the unknown ideal". 

So in summary, capitalist-like features can be found in many economies historically, including in non-capitalist economies, and conversely capitalist countries often depart from the policies favoured by free-market theorists. This is true across countries and across time.

This is not to say that it's wrong to distinguish different types of economics from each other, the USSR may have had some market aspects but it was also very different to the USA. But the idea of economic stages that economies move through is extremely doubtful. 

Sources (other than linked in text):

Friedman, 1962. Capitalism and Freedom.Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Lenin, 1916, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, et so, 1966. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, the New American Library 

Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Affluent Society, 1958.  

Tom Steel, The life and death of St Kilda, 1988