In short, yes Matthew is alluding to these passages. But the accuracy of his interpretation of them is another question altogether:
Issues reconciling this with Acts
Matthew is the only Gospel mentioning this event in Judas' life, but there is a parallel in Acts 1:18-19:
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
Basically, whether you like it or not, we're left with an irreconcilable difference here: either Judas purchased the field or the Chief Priests did, and he either hanged himself or fell down and burst like a balloon. Both can't be right at once.
It could be an erroneous translation carried forward from the LXX (Septuagint)
Most of the credit for this answer should really go to Chris Massey over at Cognitive Discopants - "Does Matthew Gild the Lily?". How sure are we that there was really a potter in Zechariah? This is a translation we can attest back as far as the LXX, but we may be mistaken if we base all of our interpretation on the expectation that the LXX got it right.
A number of translations take a different line on Zechariah 11:13 that makes a lot more sense, as recorded by the Syriac and one Hebrew manuscript:
And the LORD said unto me: 'Cast it into the treasury, the goodly price that I was prized at of them.' And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury, in the house of the LORD. (JPS 1917)
Then the LORD told me, "Throw the money into the treasury —that magnificent value they placed on me!" So I took the 30 shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury of the Temple of the LORD. (ISV)
This tradition suggests that the potter (yo-tser / יָצַר) should really be a treasury (ot-tsar / אוֹצָר), and may have been mis-understood by over-pious LXX scholars or a previous oral tradition which couldn't ratify the idea of a treasury in the house of Yahweh.
Matthew then carries this forward
Chris Massey makes the assertion that Matthew is following an incorrect tradition here, and trying to frame Judas' actions in such a way to fit with an OT prophecy. He observes a similar mis-reading of Zechariah 9:9 where the LXX talks about a saviour "riding on an ass and a young foal", where the Hebrew idea is merely parallelism: "riding on an ass, the foal of a donkey". And then Matthew 21:7 adds a whole second animal for Jesus to ride on compared with Mark and Luke, who only have the one donkey.
Matthew then compounds this mis-reading of Zechariah by confusing it with legitimate Potter references from Jeremiah, leaving Matthew 27:9-10 as a bit of a mixture of errors. Consequentially, there's a risk that many translations have preserved an incorrect rendering of Zechariah because they find it validated by Matthew, which is something of a circular logic problem.
An alternative-alternative conclusion...
Now getting out into the realm of pure speculation based on these texts, there is an outside possibility that there could be an additional layer of error involved here. In Matthew the Chief Priests respond to Judas' casting down of his 30 pieces of silver:
And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.
It could be that in some stage or form there was a story or oral tradition preserved here which both Matthew and Luke-Acts preserve in their own fashion, speaking of Judas casting his money down into the treasury, which the priests took offense at and corrected. Perhaps Judas did fulfill what was spoken by Zechariah, and the Chief Priests did fulfill something of what was spoken by Jeremiah. It could even be that if Matthew was partly or wholly written in Hebrew/Aramaic as some theorise, that the misinterpretation may have come in those who carried it to the Greek.
One way or another we're basically left unpicking errors by Matthew or a subsequent translator of this text. After some examination this seems like a fairly obvious error in the text or its underlying tradition, regardless of who made the error or when.