How does Yugoslavia after 1945 show the limits of Soviet-style socialism or its strengths?
The history of Yugoslavia after 1945 tends more to show the weaknesses of Soviet-style socialism. It does this in two ways.
First, this weakness is shown by the fact that Yugoslavia was the most prosperous of the communist countries. This shows weakness because it departed from true Soviet-style collectivization and central control of the economy. There were many Marxists who did not even really see Yugoslavia as a truly socialist country. Since such a country was the most prosperous, we can infer that deviating from Soviet-style socialism was economically superior.
Second, the weakness is shown by the fact that even the most prosperous socialist state fell apart once it lost its ability to coerce its people. (This decay also can be said to have started after the death of the charismatic leader Tito.) The socialist system never managed to find a way to make the various parts of Yugoslavia feel connected to one another. Therefore, when political coercion was eased, the country fell apart.
In these ways, the experience of Yugoslavia shows the weaknesses of Soviet-style socialism.
Happily for it, Yougoslavia was not included in the sharing of Yalta between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill and stayed on the western side of the "Iron curtain" described by Churchill, even if the regime was a communist one.
Stalin and all the communist parties attacked very strongly Tito, but never invaded Yougoslavia like they did for Hungary in 1956 and Tchecoslovakia in 1968.