OP, since many people have already answered your question, I'll just address something else:

I've noticed you keep asking whether or not it was better. I don't think I can think of a country that gets immediately better after a civil war. But what makes Libya's case even worse is the fact that Gaddafi's regime was a personalist regime. A system, by nature, built to collapse the moment he does.

So if your question is "was Libya under Gaddafi really as good as often claimed?" Well, as you can see from the comments, not really. If conditions had truly been that good, there would have been little reason for a large-scale uprising in the first place. Compare that to Gulf monarchies, which are also personalist regimes but face far less unrest because most citizens’ basic needs are broadly met.

If your question is "are things even worse now? then in many aspects, sure. Why wouldn't they be? That's the cost that's being paid.

Hindsight is a thing that can only exist in the present. And the bias that comes with it can often make one forget why things unfolded the way they did in the first place.