We already live in such a society.
I recently saw a case (in the US!) where one individual forcibly took and/or destroyed most of another person’s property (including taking over his house and everything in it, backed by “or else” threats of violence, defamation, death, etc.) and when the person sued, the court said this taking over and/or destroying property did not even give rise to a cause of action. A jury said that some of the individual’s other actions (e.g. in pursuit of making good on those threats) were "outrageous," but the judge ruled that forcibly taking and/or destroying another’s property does not even give rise to a cause of action in the courts! A different judge ruled that the owner could eventually take his property back, but not necessarily in the same condition, and the individual did not have to voluntarily surrender it nor pay for having taken and/or destroyed the owner's property.
In the US, those with the backing of law enforcement can also legally seize property of others even if its owner committed no crime. (See <PERSON> coverage of the topic here). 207
This may be more common in countries where corruption is more common, but it also happens surprisingly often in the US. Billions of dollars have been taken from people who weren’t even charged with a crime, and it’s all legal.
I’ve also recently read the official description of the “Theft Purchase Protection” benefit of a credit card from a major US bank, which allows people to buy things on the credit card having more confidence that if it's stolen shortly after purchase the cost will be reimbursed.
The details stated that “Theft Protection Coverage doesn’t apply to any item if the item was stolen as a result of illegal activity.” The coverage apparently applies to the subset of theft that is not illegal activity, which is a large enough subset to set up a whole insurance program that’s apparently fully capitalized and staffed.
Related to the first example, this article describes another (i.e. non-US) country where that first case is much more common. Dangerous individuals/groups come up to owners of homes and land demanding that the home and everything in them be turned over “or else” (violence, death, etc.), causing large numbers of people to be displaced from their original homes. 14% of the country’s national territory has been stolen from its original owners, and the people who took it are unlikely to face penalties as a condition of a pending peace deal.
Finally, there are existing communal societies in which there's no clear concept that XYZ thing is "mine and not yours" so if you take and use and even consume it, that's not considered stealing.
Conclusion: Apparently, at least sometimes, theft is legal, in existing societies, even if that fact isn’t widely known.
Note: I recognize the question asked more about moral than legal but also asked about “a culture that considers theft something neutral.” Here, the various parties involved appear to disagree over the question of morality but the legal system speaks on behalf of the larger culture or society. 207