Nope. Just in context with what is described in both the Old and New.
No, RND that is not what is
described in the OT or NT, but what has been interpreted from said descriptions through the perspective of the Euro-Western culture post-Christ and post-Empire, and laden with this culture's ideas about rulership, place, and control.
Was Adam's "dominion" over the garden taken away AzA?
The work that Adam and Eve did in the garden -- dressing and keeping -- was still their responsibility when they left it. The only reason that the change in the rest of creation means anything is that A&E still had a job to do in that context, in charge over the cattle, the fish, the birds, and the ground they came from. Both they and their children continued to do that work. We still continue to do that work.
Kindly reconsider that statement.
Adam and Eve in the garden WAS the world.
I fail to understand why you are construing "world" in this way. We're describing ordinary 3D space. The garden could not have been the world if A&E were able to leave it -- and they did leave for other territory. If the garden had been the world, a river could not have flowed out of it because there would have been nowhere for it to flow -- and yet a river flowed out. The writer says that the garden was planted *in* Eden, just as my home is *in* a state. My home is not the sum of the state, the garden was not the sum of Eden, and Eden was not the sum of the world. The placement and extent of the rivers establishes that. So does the reference to Nod, east of the area. Map it out if you care to; it has been done.
How so? Did they not have a word for dominion back then?
A word is never as important as the concept for which it is a sign. They have had words to signify "heaven," "marriage," and "responsibility" in every culture since mankind was created but we would be desperately wrong to assume that these concepts have remained static across cultures since then. To be fair to these writers we have to respect the fact that our worlds and lenses are different from theirs. That is how we put ourselves in a position to learn from them.
No doubt, but that is not to say that the limited partnership dominion that Adam had with God was not taken away from him through his disobedience to God.
"Limited partnership dominion"? That is not a native construction for the literature. There was only ownership on one hand and possession or stewardship on the other, with no halfway house between the two states. The jubilee system was one of several cultural signs that reminded humanity that it only possessed and served, and didn't own or regulate. Our dominion was bound by God from the very beginning. Our contemporary idea that we own, part-own, or have ever done so simply doesn't find parallel in the ancient Jewish context. But it grates on our customs and lenses so I can understand why it is so strongly resisted.