De-colonial or Postcolonial - What vocabulary does it take to describe present-day colonial practices?

The Critical and Cultural Theory research subjects Art History, Comparative Literature and Philosophy collectively arranges a one-day symposium on the topic of outlooks and worldviews of what is variously referred to as de-colonialism, postcolonialism, post-imperialism and colonial theory.

Karl Marx described colonialism as a developmental stage, the global expansion of capitalism in the shape of empires with colonies. At first, raw materials were extracted from the colonies and brought to metropolitan centra, to be refined for high-end markets. Today, we see the consequences of a long exploitation of colonized countries as resources and dumps for richer countries, at a distance from more densely populated centra.

In short, we have several traditions of criticism of colonial practices that follow language borders. The Spanish-American critique of capitalist Modernity prefers to speak of the possibility to de-link, and in the end to find a de-colonial option. The Francophone would rather speak of mondialisation, while the Anglophone describe roughly the same thing as globalisation. In the global (mondiale?) 1970s and 1980s champions of Comparative Literature brought forth a new reading syllabus based on readings of French Theory. For a while, post-colonial criticism, critique or other variations on the theme became common parlance.

So, what does it look like around and, perhaps most of all, beyond the most well-known colonial projects?

How have differences in rights and duties been handled and named?

And who have been treated as (un-)equals in the eyes of the Law?

For instance, how have indigenous peoples been described and spoken of, and in what terms have they spoken back?

Besides the linguistic one, is there any difference at all between the outlooks of de-colonial, post-colonial, or post-imperial practices?