I'll try to answer your question, sorry if it doesn't satisfy you

Yes, wine drinking was quite a common occurrence in all parts of the empire, whose production and consumption was largely done by non-Muslims, who were generally allowed to produce and sell them to their own kind. Alcohol consumption was mainly confined to cities, with some exceptions like in the Balkans and Greece where alcohol was consumed in the countryside. In the Balkans, the old-age practice of drinking wine continued even in the countryside, with exceptions in the Muslim community. For example Bosnian Muslims obeyed the wine prohibition proscribed by the government, but considered raki, a spirit distilled from grapes to be lawful for consumption. Sarajevo was home to around 21 taverns in the second half of the 18th century. In 18th century Izmir, taverns were kept open all hours, day and night and it also contained a large number or koltuk, a small or mobile tavern, whose numbers reached 800 in the middle of the 19th century. In Aleppo there were greater restrictions because of the prevalence of drunkenness, but wine consumption continued in private homes and Han al-gümrük, hostels for non-Muslims and foreign travellers. In Damascus, local Christians and Jews were allowed to make and drink wine within the bounds of discretion. Most of Damascene wine were made in villages, especially Saydnaya located to the north of Damascus. Grapes were the basis of all alcoholic drinks, either fermented as wine or arak. In Egypt, the Coptic population distilled arak from dates, while local Greeks produced tafia made from molasses and sugar canes. The Muslim population of Egypt just like most Muslims of the empire also drunk boza, a beer-like drink made of fermented millet and of low alcoholic content. And finally, Istanbul, especially the non-Muslim quarters of Golden Horn, Galata, and Pera were famous for its taverns. According to Evliya Çelebi, in the 16th century the city boasted some 1,060 taverns, 100 of which were ran by Jews. While those in Galata were owned by Greek Orthodox, there were also Muslim owners who ran wine houses in different parts of the city. By 1829 the city had a comparatively modest number of 554 taverns. Bozahanehs, Boza houses were also quite numerous and frequently visited by Muslims of Istanbul as an easier and slightly more lawful alternative to taverns and wine.

Taverns, being mostly ran and visited by non-Muslims can be easily found in non-Muslim neighborhood and side alleys, away from mosques or Muslim residences. Muslims also occasionally frequented taverns, but they did so stealthily, fearful of the punishment that awaited those who were caught. However, we have evidences that pointed out that at least in Istanbul, Muslims frequenting taverns were seen as a normal occurence. For example 17th century book Treatise on Strange Events noted that Muslims drank wine, caroused with Christians and Jews, and owned taverns. Another example was a shari'a scribal record from the same era, where Ibrahim Çelebi son of Ali and his wife came to court to demand blood money from Nikita Merkuri, the Orthodox Christian owner of a tavern in an unspecified Christian neighborhood of Beşiktaş. Knife-wielding Ahmed had murdered their son Mehmed while the two were sitting at the tavern with Abdullah, Mustafa, a velvet carpet dealer named Mahmud, and the stonemason Amr. The fact that 5 Muslim men were sitting at a tavern in a Christian neighborhood before the conversation became heated and knives were drawn is not commented on by the scribe, nor does it appear to concern the religious magistrate handling the matter.

Of course the prevalence of alcohol consumption did not sit well with some sultans, who viewed them as vices and causes of moral corruption. Sultans prohibited alcohol and controversial consumables such as coffee and tobacco at one point or another during their reign in order to seek blessings during natural disaster or on the eve of a military campaign, motivated by religious fervour, pressured by the ulema, mindful of the approach of old age and the reckoning in the hereafter, or simply seeking to maintain public order. Süleyman I first forbade the public sale of wine in the 1540s, making it difficult even for non-Muslims to obtain any. Similar bans were issued by his successors, Selim II continued his father's ban, Murad III continued it too, having previously banned wine houses only in Muslim areas, Mehmed III banned it, when in Ramazan of that year all wine found in the wine houses was destroyed and the doors of the wine houses sealed, Ahmed I, and Murad IV also banned it, with the latter had all wine houses closed. Murad adopted a tough stance over this, just like his stance on most things. If he came across any drunk during his tours incognito at night, he personally killed him. Mehmed IV banned it in 1670-71, influenced by Kadizadeli thoughts he extended the bans, first to any neighbourhood that housed a mosque, and next to private use even among non-Muslims. It was again forbidden in 1689 by Süleyman II, when Küfri Ahmed Efendi, the tax collector on wine, was killed. Selim III also struggled to ban it, with only limited success. The frequency and sequential nature of these decrees proved that these bans were largely ineffective and effort at quashing the consumption of and trade in alcohol amounted to merely short-lived, symbolic measures that ultimately failed. This was mostly because of economic reasons. Taxes on alcohol were a lucrative source of income, one that the Ottoman state couldn't ignore. Campaigns in Hungary on 1596-97 made Süleyman reverse his ban on alcohol, ban imposed by Ahmed I in 1617 reduced state revenue that he reversed the ban, and Mehmed IV reversed the ban in 1687 after the War against the Holy League had deprived the state of its treasury. Additionally, bans on alcohol also impacted local economy, as many relied on it for income. In Galata, for example, the fish market sold fish for those frequenting the wine houses. Fruit sellers too sold fruits for patrons of the taverns, while alcohol sellers and makers definitely benefited from selling every kind of alcohol imaginable. The police force also earned a living from fees they collected from extorting fines from every Muslim they caught drinking. So in the end, pragmatism tended to prevail, as people, and certainly non-Muslims, were left alone in their drinking as long the public order was not disturbed, and rulers often effectively benefited from the tax revenue generated from alcohol consumption, even if they would never explicitly support or allow it.

Source:

Alcohol in the Islamic Middle East: Ambivalence and Ambiguity by Rudi Mathee

A Social History of Ottoman Istanbul by Ebru Boyar and Kate Fleet

Honored by the Glory of Islam: Conversion and Conquest in Ottoman Europe by Marc David Baer