Is it a true or false premise that the condition of the atoms at that point is not permanent? As far as we know, yes, it's true.
If you scooped out a cup of neutron star matter and tossed it a long distance away from the star... would it expand to something approximating its original density? Not likely (again, as far as we know).
Assuming this is believable, what mass + force could be brought against a neutron star to cause it to shatter such that the resulting debris does not fall back together quickly (quickly <= 100,000 years) but allows the mass to expand — thereby forming planets? Just about anything with mass moving at relativistic speeds, and hitting at the correct angle.
I liken this to the formation theories of the planet Mercury. Mercury has an unusual composition of elements, compared to what is expected in most planetary creation methods known. One predominant theory, for a while, was that Mercury had originally formed 'normally', but then had a head on collision with another planet sized object, causing the apparently missing elements from the planet's mantel to be vaporized and blown away by solar wind. But this 'head on collision' theory didn't account for some of the materials that were still on the planet's surface, which should also have been vaporized and blown away, and it didn't account for the pieces of the two planets that should then start orbiting the Sun, but aren't. So the theory was adjusted to a 'glancing blow' instead of a head on collision. This allowed most of the surface (the side away from the colision) to remain cool enough not to vaporize the stuff that the head on version would have blown away, and also greatly reduces the amount of shrapnel that would be orbiting the sun, most of it falling back to Mercury, or falling into the Sun, or following the other planet as it exited the solar system or whatever happened to it.
Now, if such a collision had taken place farther from the sun, the debris would not have been so easily absorbed by the sun. And this is actually what is widely regarded as the method the Earth and Moon were formed from. Earth(instead of Mercury) was impacted by something, but this time (most of) the Debris didn't get sucked in to the Sun, instead some fell back to Earth, some formed the Moon, and some flew away to who-knows-where.
Now we have the basis for the Neutron star collision. Something hits it, and it's either very big and moving very fast, or it's not so big and moving VERY fast.
Neutron stars are thought to be between 1.4 and 3 solar masses. Bigger and they become black holes, and smaller and they wouldn't form in the first place. However, they can theoretically be as small as just over 1 solar mass, and still maintain enough gravity to avoid becoming a nuclear explosion rivaling a supernova.
So, if you want to re-form this stellar system from scratch, then it's a head on collision, the Neutron star blows itself to Protons(mostly), and you've got a new proto-star cloud, and stellar and planetary accretion start over.
If you want the Neutron star to remain, then it's a glancing blow, a large chunk comes off, but a small enough amount that the main star has enough gravity to stay a neutron star. The broken chunk blows itself to protons(mostly), since it doesn't have enough gravity itself to avoid it, and you have an accretion disk around a neutron star, which can be used to form planets. Neutron stars are also thought to have a heavy element 'crust', not pure 'neutronium" surfaces, so that might even form rocky planets.
If you want the original Neutron star to remain, but revert (more-or-less-'immediately') back to some other type of more 'normal' star ... sorry, no way to do that without much more hand-waving than I've already done here.