Frame Challenge: More resources does not lead to more leisure.
I'm worldbuilding a leisure society.
In consideration of comments, it is important to preface this by defining what the OP is actually asking for. This question is about leisure, not standard of living. Leisure is by definition "free-time". A person can have a lot of leisure, and still have a poor quality of life and vise-versa.
The industrial revolution caused humans to worked way more hours over the past 300 years than we ever did historically. This is by-in-large because the our economy has been restructured to put workers in a more directly supervised system than we had before. Workers in civilizations governed by tribalism, cottage industries, or serfdom generally separate the worker's activities from any direct oversight, and these average about 1,500 hours of work per year. But industrial, post-industrial, or slavery societies where you work in a factory, office, or plantation under the direct supervision of a manager or master average about 2000-3000 hours of work per year.
By in large, cheap plentiful resources and automation devalue a person's time and encourage centralized, supervised labor. For the average person, this leads to working longer hours for less pay per hour which is exactly what we saw happened in the 1800-1900s. Even if the average person today enjoys much more luxury than the average 16th century peasant, he still has to work more hours to get it. So in our observable history, this is the definition of a decrease in leisure.
How this applies to some of your ideas.
Ideas to improve food production: This means you need less land to feed people, but this only opens up more/better land for growing other crops. This will encourage more crop variety which will use up the same amount of land. If your nation has 5 million acres of good farmland, you wont just plant 1 million acres of food and stop because it is enough food. You will find other uses for the remaining 4 million acres. So you'll just grow more cash crops like cotton, lumber, herbs, and ethanol grade corn. Now instead of 1 crop, 1 job, you now have lots of crops and lots of jobs and lots of processing facilities. Better use of the same land equals more work you can do, so your people will do more work to not waste the land.
Cheaper Energy and Materials: Many business ideas are currently unviable because they are too cost prohibitive. I COULD make a mini-theme park in my back yard and charge the neighborhood kids to come over and play, but it would cost too much to be worth while. But if the materials were really cheap to make the mini-theme park, then all it would cost me to implement is my time. Time to plan, time to build, time to run it, time to maintain it. Cheap resources make "crazy business ideas" highly accessible which in turn leads to people committing themselves to more side hustles and personal projects that take away from free time.
More Permanent Materials: We already have the technology to make most things last way longer than they actually do. But we CHOOSE not to make things last for a really long time any more because the faster you can make something, the more important Planned Obsolescence is for making sure that you don't put yourself out of business once the demand is fully met. Giving people better materials won't make us design things to last longer, instead you need to restrict your ability to manufacture enough of the things you need for Planned Obsolescence to be a good long term business strategy. If for example, the materials in a cell phone were so rare and expensive that people could not longer afford a new one every 1-3 years, then manufacturers would design them to last longer so they could sell them on 10-30 year long payment plans like they do with houses and cars. This would also cut back the total work it takes to manufacture your phones which means fewer working hours.
Conclusion, make resources LESS plentiful to improve leisure
With valuable resources being more scarce, your population has to spread out and move around more to survive. Granted you can make actual densities of resources better than on Earth to also try to encourage wealth, just don't make any deposits large enough to set up large permanent industrial settlements around. Without dense population centers, you can't have the kind of abusive labor conditions of the industrial revolution. Instead factories, mines, farms, etc. will have to be smaller and more spread out and self run by smaller communities of people working independently of direct oversight. With less oversight, you remove the adversarial management system that encourages "maximized productivity", but their work still has to be compensated a livable salary if anyone wants their products and services at all; so, the market price of their resources will shift accordingly. It will also combat the extra work created by planned obsolesce, cheaper resources, and the diversification that comes with improved efficiency.
So, the way you layout resources on your planet can either encourage more luxuries or more leisure, but not both.