Are you just using random words that you heard once? Socialism implies a variety of communal control. Habitat owns the houses they build and then they're owned by the low-income home-owner. At no point would you characterize the ownership as social. In fact, the homeowner has to pay a mortgage and participate in the building of the house. And what control do they exert? They're not a governmental entity. The most control they exert is over the property they still own, before transfer to the homeowner, who willingly enters into the agreement. They should be able to control their own property, shouldn't they? These control mechanisms are in place to make sure that the homeowner will act responsibly, that the home will be a good addition to the community, that Habitat continues to enjoy a good reputation in the community, and that Habitat can continue to build more homes. Charitable giving tied to a fruits-of-the-labor theory that would do John Locke proud.
One certainly could levy reasonable criticisms at Habitat, like efficiency of expended utility in terms of ROI, but your criticisms are so tangentially related to reality as to render them laughable.