Yes, there is likely an allusion here.
I had trouble finding many commentators who discuss even the possibility of an allusion. In fact, the sole mention I could find came from Luke Timothy Johnson's volume on Luke in the Sacra Pagina series. Almost in passing he writes:
The phrase echoes the biblical language used of Adam and Eve in Gen 3:7, "the eyes of the two were opened and they recognized that they were naked."
However, there is an article in the Journal of the Evangelical Society Volum 53(4), where Dane Ortlund addresses the very question. The article is titled, '"And Their Eyes Were Opened, and They Knew": An Inter-canonical Note on Luke 24:31.'
He begins by surveying what he considers to be the neglect of attention to the allusion, listing a large number of commentaries, monographs, and theologies that make no mention of the topic. Particularly he finds the lack of mention in Pao and Schnabel's chapter on Luke in Carson and Beale's Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament to be a serious lacuna.
However, he mentions three scholars who mention the allusion: the previously mentioned statement in L.T. Johnson's volume, a couple of remarks in some of N.T. Wright's works (e.g. on p. 652 in The Resurrection of the Son of God), and in a work by Arthur Just titled The Ongoing Feast: Table Fellowship and Eschatology at Emmaus.
Having surveyed the literature he goes on to build his argument for an allusion along four lines: 1) linguistic, 2) narratival, 3) interpretive, and 4) redemptive-history.
Ortlund notes as some have mentioned in comments above that the word translated "opened" - διανοίγω - in Luke 24:31 is rare within the New Testament. In fact, in application to eyes being opened, this is its sole use. Moreover, this is the same word used in the LXX in Genesis 3:7. Second, though, Ortlund extends the connection beyond eyes being opened, to the part of recognition noting that ἐπιγινώσκω ("recognized") in Luke and γινώσκω ("realized") share the same γινωσκω root.
In terms of narrative, Ortlund makes a number of connections between the two accounts: some more convincing than others. At the most basic narratival level, though, is the consuming of food, followed by the opening of the eyes, followed finally by the profound new recognition of a spiritual reality.
Ortlund states, "A third reason for suspecting an inter-canonical allusion in Luke 24:31 is the explanatory power it provides to the flow of Luke 24 as a whole." Here he argues that the disciples are kept from recognizing Jesus so that the critical point of recognition is in the breaking and eating of bread. This allows it to match up with the Genesis narrative in which also the critical point of recognition is in the eating.
Finally, Ortlund supports the allusion along redemptive-historical grounds, suggesting that Luke's concern is to highlight the new creation. Similarly, Wright in his brief treatment of the passage in The Resurrection of the Son of God points out that the Genesis 3 eating is the first meal of the original creation, the Luke 24 passage the first meal of the new creation.