While I agree it’s important to point out, for example, the role of the market in the discovery and conveyance of inarticulate knowledge, I don’t think that it is a strong basis for a critique of Habermas. Habermas already acknowledges (1) that the lifeworld can only be addressed in a piecemeal fashion, so that even at the lifeworld level there is a sense of the limits of explicit communication, and (2) that the subsystems of state and market, due to their complexity, escape communicative reason, and that is precisely their blessing and their danger. To be sure, Habermas acknowledges a positive role for the market, and he holds that it is a necessary component of a viable modern society.
I personally think that his colonization thesis is a much stronger point of contention.
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/system-and-lifeworld-a-brief-introduction/18684
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/civil-political-and-market-society-a-brief-introduction/18795
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/utopia-and-social-structure-a-brief-introduction/19270