Sequential execution in π-Calculus
Sequential execution is an edge case of concurrent computation.
Robin Milner said this clearly in his  Turing award lecture "Elements of interaction" (CACM, 36(1), 1993):

I reject the idea that there can be a unique conceptual model,
or one preferred formalism, for all aspects of something as large
as concurrent computation, which is in a sense the whole of our
subject – containing sequential computation as a well-behaved
special area.


You can see sequential computation as a form of well-behaved, nice concurrent computation. This niceness comes out when comparing the processes of reasoning about, an implementing sequential vs concurrent computation.

But this insight is much older and forms the essence of the Actor
model. See for example Hewitt's 1976 "Viewing Control Structures as
Patterns of Passing Messages".

There are various ways of enforcing sequential computation in process
calculus. A simple one is only to allow processes that have at most
one active output, i.e. an output that is not under an input
prefix. This can be enforced by typing see e.g. "Strong Normalisation in the $\pi$-Calculus".

Now coming to your question: does interaction on $x$ in  $x(v).P \ |\ \overline{x}y.Q \rightarrow P[y/v] \ |\ Q$ represent sequential behaviour as such? No. The reason is that other processes could be running in parallel with $x(v).P \ |\ \overline{x}y.Q$. All we are seeing here is an exchange of messages, a handshake, where the receiver has to wait until the sender's message arrives.