I do remember that each consumer device was sold there with its schematics, assembly/disassembly and installation instructions. And that was the law.
That's interesting. I wonder if there's a archive of those schematics/documents for Soviet consumer devices somewhere.
As an example, can see hardware schematics in the Apple II Reference Manual found here:
I'm mostly interested in the Soviet material as I'm assuming that because it was a legal requirement the types of documented designs will be more broad, but if you know of an archive of old Western schematics also, I would be interested in taking a look.
Sometimes there are still schematics, Agisight still does it e.g. for low-end power supplies.
For instance (not Soviet, but East German): here are a few links to manuals and schematics for the East German KC85 computers:
But this sort of detailed schematics 'coming in the box' was also common for Western home computers, and it's all preserved. The same for reference manuals of CPUs, and especially support chips. Without these, writing emulators would be much, much harder.
It dawned on me that in the 70s things needed to be that comprehensive because ... no internet!
You know it's all consumer dynamics. People buy even without, then why bother.
You're likely talking about the Amstrad CPC, I'm not sure why "toy" should apply to it : it was the best selling 8-bit in several European countries, and by far the most capable of all (the C64 had better sound but much worse graphics, and the ZX Spectrum well... let's be charitable and say that it had at least price going for it.)
For some reason, the Amstrad was underrated in parts of northern Europe (and especially the UK, its homeland), usually in favour of the C64 (fair), and the ZX Spectrum (IMO inexplicable)
Compare screenshots of Operation Wolf, Gryzor, Barbarian side by side on CPC/C64/ZX and you'll see what I mean.
Soviet tech had to be built for serviceability - people couldn't often afford new things and even if they had the money, there was no guarantee it was even available. And many things just broke down constantly. It even went so far that "a set of golden hands," meaning one could fix a lot of stuff was a valued characteristic in males, and women sometimes may have overlooked other personality flaws in a relationship because of it, like drinking.
My grandma had a Soviet TV well into the 90s and even early 2000s, maybe out of sentimental attachment more than anything else. The thing broke down constantly, every 3-4 months at least, and she'd always call a repairman. In the end I think more money was sunk into it than a brand new 4K TV would cost now. It was finally laid to rest when her usual TV repairman died, and the new one found it increasingly difficult to find replacement parts, and finally gave up, and we could at last get her a new TV.
I bought a Miele washing machine in 1996, and it's still being used today. It was about twice the price of machines that I'd had to before that never seemed to last more than a few years.
I'd also like to see a good data set of real prices of appliances over time.
Edit: Here's some examples of 1950s appliances: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/50selectrical.html
Washer + Dryer in 1953: $494.90
Average monthly wage in 1953: $ 3,139.44 
Average monthly wage in 2013: $44,888.16
So a 1953 washer+dryer cost the same amount of labor as a $7076 washer+dryer today.
also there were significant sharing of tech between military industry and consumer (one can say that in many areas the consumer one was just a minor branch off the main military industry, kind of a USSR version of COTS). TVs and control boards of cruise missiles used the same electronic parts and were built using the same skills/processes - the consumer parts (like transistors, etc) were just the ones that didn't make the higher quality military bin (the military binned parts were marked "VPK" - "Voennaya Priemnaya Komissiya"/"military quality check", and these ones you'd prefer to use in your own electronic projects when/if you could get them).
If you're curious to see one in action -
It was a relatively common method in precision electronics.
There could be other reasons as well, e.g. if these were ceramic capacitors they might do that to avoid cracking issues. (Because ceramic capacitors drift a lot by themselves, a drift/precision explanation does not make sense)
In fact I remember being deliberately careful around them as they were easy to bend, when reaching in a tighter space to solder or adjust some variable resistors or capacitors.