I need to make two further comments:
First, Karl Rahner is not the originator of the distinction between theology and economy, popularly expressed today as the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinities. This distinction is a scholastic commonplace, grounded in the teachings of the Nicene Fathers. Rahner, rather, is known for his assertion of the (relative) identity of the immanent and economic Trinities. This identity has been employed by contemporary Western theologians to defend the Filioque. Karl Rahner and Karl Barth immediately come to mind. In response to this Western argument, Eastern theologians, such as Zizioulas, have responded by denying the identity of the immanent and economic Trinities: a distinction between the two must be maintained, they say, lest history and creaturely becoming is read back into the eternal being.
Second, I have already mentioned three Orthodox theologians who assert the distinction between theology and economy--Florovsky, Lossky, and Zizioiulas. Contrary to what you suggest, Fr Giryus, none of them can be said to have been influenced by Latin theologians regarding their formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly did not learn the theology/economy distinction from Rahner. They learned it, rather, from the Church Fathers.
How about Fr Michael Pomazansky? I hope you will not suggest that he too was corrupted by contemporary Catholic theology.
The dogma of the begetting of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father shows the mystical inner relations of the Persons in God and the life of God within Himself. One must clearly distinguish these relations which are pre-eternal, from all eternity, and outside of time, from the manifestations of the Holy Trinity in the created world, from the activities and manifestations of God's Providence in the world as they have been expressed in such events as the creation of the world, the coming of the Son of God to earth, His Incarnation, and the sending down of the Holy Spirit. These providential manifestations and activities have been accomplished in time. In historical time the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary by the descent upon Her of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). In historical time, the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at the time of His baptism by John. In historical time, the Holy Spirit was sent down by the Son from the Father, appearing in the form of fiery tongues. The Son came to earth through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is sent down by the Son in accordance with the promise, "the Comforter ... Whom l will send unto you from the Father" (John 15:26). Concerning the pre-eternal begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, one might ask: "When was this begetting and this procession?" St. Gregory the Theologian replies: "This was before when itself. You have heard about the begetting; do not be curious to know in what form this begetting was. You have heard that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; do not be curious to know how He proceeds." (pp. 83-84)
Pomazansky then goes on to employ the theology/economy distinction to explain what Eastern Fathers meant when they spoke of the Spirit proceeding "through the Son": the phrase refers not to the essential relations of the Divine Hypostases but to the "manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the world, that is, to the providential actions of the Holy Trinity, and not to the life of God in Himself" (p. 90). Here we find the distinction between God in himself and God manifested and revealed in the world invoked precisely to refute the Filioque! This distinction, in other words, enables us to distinguish between the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son at Pentecost. Zizioulas also makes this point in his article "One Single Source
As my final witness, I call to the stand Fr Boris Bobrinskoy:
Reflecting the thought of the Church Fathers, Orthodox theology rightly distinguishes between trinitarian "theology" and trinitarian "economy." Trinitarian theology deals with the mystery of the Trinity in its eternal "immanence," the infinite, blessed communion of the divine Persons among themselves, without reference to creation. Trinitarian economy, on the other hand, refers to the concerted activity of the three Persons ad extra, in creation, as they maintain and restore the created world to a state of well-being adn communion with God. This distinction between trinitarian theology and trinitarian economy is both fundamental and relative.
It is fundamental in the sense that although the world and human existence are defined with essential reference to God, God cannot be defined either by or for the world. He possesses in Himself His own fundamental reason for being, which is fully complete and totally self-sufficient.
Yet it is also relative, because Christian theology is in constant tension between (a) the "soteriological" perspective of revelation--that is, all that God teaches us about Himself in fact concerns our salvation and eternal life--and (b) the divine "ontology" of question of "being." Orthodox theology has thus witnessed a remarkable development, prompted as much by a reaction against Arianism as by an impulse and necessity intrinsic to the human mind. Beginning with St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians, Orthodox thought moved from the level of the trinitarian economy of salvation to a trinitarian theology, a contemplation of the Holy Trinity in Itself, pressing to the outer limits of what human thought and language can express regarding the eternal properties or attributes of the One God and the Divine Persons. This development, from "economy" to "theology," provided the foundation for Orthodox dogmatic theology and its doctrine of God in His incomprehensible essence, His trinitarian Hypostases, and His energies in which the human person is called to participate. (The Mystery of the Trinity, pp. 2-3)
But as I said, I know you must already know this, Fr Giryus, and have perhaps just momentarily forgotten it, perhaps because theology/economy distinction was invoked in a controversial discussion of the Filioque.