Economic inequality isn't explicitly considered in criminal sentencing in the United States, which is why it doesn't really have a name with which I am familiar.
The global circumstances of the offender may be considered in sentencing (over which judges, especially at the state level, have broad discretion).
Contrary to the intuition of the question, generally speaking, less well to do people tend to receive more harsh sentences, despite the economic stresses that they may have been facing, while more well to do people tend to receive more lenient sentences because they can promptly provide restitution, appear to have better prospects for rehabilitation, can afford to pay for alternative programs, and are more relatable to the average judge.
One way to think about property crimes (from a sort of political/legal theory sense) is that they exist mostly to discourage conduct committed by people who have no capacity to compensate the victims for out of pocket, making a civil lawsuit an inadequate incentive. Situations where the wrongdoer usually has the capacity to compensate victims for are usually characterized in the law as civil wrongs, while situations where the wrongdoer usually can't balance the scales with a proportionate monetary punishment are usually punished criminally.