This answer is according to the original version of the question, which read: "Is something known about the Soviet post-occupation plan for Finland?"
Regarding Post WWII Finland - truth is, I thought the question was weak on this point, because it gave no reason or substantiation regarding possible "Soviet post-occupation plan for Finland". But I did find this:
Why didn't USSR occupied Finland in 1944?
Why didn't USSR occupy all Finland in 1944... but the super-power that
USSR was by 1944, could have occupied the country...so why not?
From a Finn, apparently quite knowledgable on this subject - see the page indicated for extensive details: Here's something I wrote, years ago, in answer for this question
The short answer: Stalin didn't want a revolution in Finland unless
the Finnish communists could effect one themselves, without Soviet
help. And the Finnish communists were unable to make a revolution
without Soviet tanks rolling into Helsinki....
These are the most important reasons why the Finnish communists were
unable to make revolution without the Soviet help. But why didn't
Stalin give that help? Why didn't the Red Army occupy Finland and put
the communists in power?
1) As the Soviets very well knew, the Finnish Army remained an
effective fighting force. After the Soviet offensive on 9 June 1944,
the following two weeks were certainly not the most glorious chapter
in the history of Finnish Army. But what was most important is that
the Finnish Army retreated in orderly fashion and remained intact and
undefeated in the field. In the fierce battles of late June and early
July 1944 the Red Army was fought to standstill, and despite its
efforts, Red Army was unable to occupy Finland. As late as early
August 1944 two Soviet divisions were encircled and destroyed in
northern Karelia near Ilomantsi. Fully mobilized, Finnish Defence
Forces fielded 450 000 experienced men. As Stalin himself in 1948 said
to a surprised Finnish delegation: "Nobody respects a country with a
weak army. Everybody respects a country with a strong army. I propose
a toast to the Finnish Army!"
Occupying Finland would have meant for the USSR bloody war right after
the devastations of WWII at the time Cold War was beginning. In all
probability it would have been similar experience like Chechenia is
for Russia today. When the Continuation War ended in September 1944, a
group of Finnish general staff officers (with Mannerheim's unspoken
approval - that's plausible deniability 40 years before Iran-Contra!)
began secretly to organise weapon caches around Finland. They were
meant to be used to support large-scale guerilla warfare if USSR tried
to occupy Finland. This so-called Weapon Caches Case became soon
public and offical investigations began (conducted, of course, by the
communist Security Police). For the Soviets it was yet another
evidence that if they tried to occupy Finland, they had to pay dearly.
Decades later, Molotov told to a party historian: "It was a very wise
decision [not to occupy Finland]. It would have been a bleeding wound
in our side! The people there, they are very stubborn, very stubborn."
From these points it clearly emerges that a non-communist Finland was
in best interests of post-war USSR. If the Finnish communists were able to take power
themselves, good, but as they were manifestly unable to do so, better
leave Finland in peace. An attempt to occupy Finland would only mean
engaging USSR so soon after the WWII in a messy and costly conflict
that would damage its economy and foreign relations.
From the preparation of the Finnish general staff officers for a large-scale guerrilla war if USSR tried to occupy Finland, and from Molotov's remarks, it seems clear that there was fear in Finland, and talk in the USSR, about an invasion of Finland, in the near-end and immediate post-war period, because there was already a significant communist presence there at that time. But the USSR opted not move into Finland, because they knew it would have been much too messy.