Surely, all clothing is linked to social history? It doesn't just happen. For instance, we would not have had Jane Austen style draped, high-waisted muslin dresses without French Revolution admiration of ancient Greece combined with British/French commercial and military intervention in India (where fine white cottons came from). Similarly, factory mass-produced cheap and washable cotton cloth revolutionised British working women's clothing in the 19th century. So did the self-conscious conspicuous consumption of the new upper-middle-class of the late 19th cent, where luxurious but impractical clothes for the wives of self-made men were an advertisment of their riches, because the clothes were so obviously impossible to do manual work in. If it matters, so were many of the Downton Abbey garments.
Further back in time, medieval women's all-covering garments were influenced by contemporary religious and secular attitudes towards women's sexuality. And the high-waisted/full-bellied look fashionable among upper classes in the 14th/15th centuries reflected noblewomen's most important function - to produce a male heir to continue the family and inherit the land and title. Even the colours of women's clothes in many medieval images contain a code for how the woman should be 'evaluated'. (Blue = virgin, yellow = prostitute, etc). So do medieval female hairstyles (roughly: loose hair = loose woman or else (depending on context) extreme ingenue/virgin). The flapper dresses (and short hair and no corsets) of the 1920s deserve whole books to decode them, and have had them. At completely the other end of the timescale, an archaeologist I once worked with used to say that tunic plus trousers were the first, 'basic', clothes for all humanity, whatever their gender
Terribly, terribly sorry to go on so. By profession, am a historian.