Its a fairly hotly debated topic. Consider that most people, at least within the Roman Empire, lived within a city, town or other more centralized environment. Roman cities were uniformly designed with differences mainly existing in placement of buildings, etc.
While city life in Londinium was considerably less hectic than Rome I'm sure, Roman culture still pervailed. There was the addition of Celtic influence certainly, but still the people there were city dwellers. Smaller provincial cities certainly didnt deal with the political mayhem that could happen in Rome and weren't subject to the passing fancy the way Rome could be, but essentially, daily life would've been pretty similar.
Latin citizens most assuredly lived in a liefestyle similar all over the empire. The difference then wouldnt be much different than the differences today between city and country folk. Its not necessarily about economic condition, but about a different lifestyle. There was certainly a smaller 'middle class' in the Roman world than there is today, but as opposed to many eras, they did actually have one.
Where you might have seen some differences, would be in the non latin people, such as Romanized Celts or what have you. They certainly would maintain a much different lifestyle when away from Roman influence. Some were poor, of course, just as many actual Latins were, but still a different status than the feudal system of the middle ages.
In that era, the monty python classic line certainly applies. Peasants could very well live in *****, where nobility and social elite lived a life of relative luxury.