The deteriorating strategic environment is precisely why China might plausibly abandon, pause, or delay the development of a nuclear-powered carrier. Conventional carriers are both significantly cheaper and faster to build than nuclear carriers and can provide the numbers and aggregate capabilities that PLAN would require to play a strategically significant role without breaking the bank. Conventional offers PLAN much better bang for buck over the medium-term (e.g. period to ~2035-40) in which the strategic balance and political situation with the USA and other regional nations is going to be most tense. Going straight to nuclear is for peacetime when you don't care about delivering X capabilities by Y date for Z cost because the technology and expertise involved in the endeavour are the goals in and of themselves.
Personally, I don't think PLAN should look at nuclear carriers until they have at least six conventional carriers on the board. And not just because of the balance of power/buildup/budget considerations noted above, but also in terms of minimising PLAN's exposure to potentially revolutionary technologies that may threaten the long-term viability of the aircraft carrier. That is to say, conventional over nuclear would not only be about putting more carriers into service, faster, but also putting fewer eggs in the eye-wateringly expensive "carrier" basket in the first place, freeing up more resources for expenditure elsewhere.
