This is a spectacularly ambiguous, poorly-posed question, so I'm going to instantiate it in a way that I find interesting. If this wasn't the question you wanted answered, then edit your question to do a better job of asking a well-formed question.
$\newcommand{\tri}{\mathbin{\triangle}}$
I'm going to assume we are given an integer $N$ of unknown factorization, and we have a representation of elements of $\mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$ as bit strings, via some representation function $[\cdot] : \mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z} \to \{0,1\}^*$. Thus, $[x]$ is the representation of $x \in \mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$. Define the operations $\triangle,*$ so that $[x+y] = [x] \tri [y]$ and $[xy] = [x] * [y]$. Or, in other words, define $\tri$ by $s \tri t = [\langle s \rangle + \langle t \rangle ]$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle : \{0,1\}^* \to \mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$ is the inverse map of $[\cdot]$, and similarly for $*$.
(In terms of the original question, the bit strings play the role of the ring $S$.)
Suppose we are given the following abilities (and only these abilities):
We have a black box that, when invoked, will generate a random element $r$ in $\mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$ and output $[r]$ (it won't tell us $r$, though).
We have a black box that, when given $s,t$ as inputs, will output $s \tri t$.
We have a black box that, when given $s,t$ as inputs, will output $s * t$.
The question becomes: can we compute $[1]$, a bit string that is the representation of $1 \in \mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$? In other words, we're looking for a generic algorithm that will work correctly no matter what representation map $[\cdot ]$ happens to be chosen.
And the answer is: no, there is no efficient algorithm to compute $[1]$, given only these operations. This can be shown, using the same techniques used to show lower bounds in generic black-box groups, e.g., the same techniques used to show that there is no polynomial-time generic algorithm for the discrete log in a generic group.
How do we show it? I'll start by illustrating a proof, for the case where we are only allowed to invoke the first black box once: we can generate a single random value $[r]$, and then we can apply $\tri,*$ polynomially many times. Here's the proof. Let $x_0=r$, and let $x_i$ denote the $i$th element of $\mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z}$ that we compute. For instance, if our algorithm takes $[r]$ and computes $s = [r]\tri [r]$ and then computes $t = s*[r]$ (say), we'll have $x_0=r$, $x_1=r+r$, $x_2=x_1x_0$. Say that the algorithm runs for $k$ steps. For the algorithm to be correct, we need it to output $[1]$, or in other words, we need to have $x_k=1$. Notice that each $x_i$ can be expressed as some polynomial of $x_0$, say, $x_i=p_i(x_0)$ (this can be proven by induction). So our algorithm corresponds to a polynomial $p_k(\cdot)$.
If the algorithm is correct, we must have $p_k(r)=1$ with high probability over the random choice of $r$. Is this possible? It turns out that this is not possible, if $k$ is not too large and if $N$ is hard to factor. In particular, if $\Pr_r[p_k(r)=1]$ is large, then we get an algorithm for factoring $N$ with $k$ steps and with a non-trivially large success probability. Here's why. Define the polynomial $q(\cdot)$ by $q(x)=p_k(x)-1$. By assumption, $\Pr_r[q(r)=0]$ is large, i.e., the polynomial $q(x)$ has many roots. On the other hand, it can't have too many roots: it has at most $k^2$ roots, by a simple application of the Chinese remainder theorem, so if $k$ is smaller than $\sqrt{N}$, $\Pr_r[q(r)=0]$ is large but strictly smaller than $1$. Now suppose $N=PQ$, and consider the polynomials $q(x) \bmod P$ and $q(x) \bmod Q$. Notice that
$$\Pr_r[q(r)=0] = \epsilon_P \times \epsilon_Q$$
where $\epsilon_P = \Pr_r[q(r)=0 \pmod P]$ and $\epsilon_Q = \Pr_r[q(r)=0 \pmod Q].$
Since the left-hand side ($\Pr[q(r)=0]$) is large, then both right-hand side terms ($\epsilon_P,\epsilon_Q$) must be large. In particular, $q$ has many roots modulo $P$ and many roots modulo $Q$. So, here is an efficient algorithm for factoring $N$. We pick $r$ randomly, compute $q(r)$, and then compute $\gcd(N,q(r))$. Notice that this outputs a non-trivial factor of $N$ with probability $\epsilon_P (1-\epsilon_Q) + \epsilon_Q (1-\epsilon_P)$. Since $\epsilon_P \times \epsilon_Q < 1$ but both $\epsilon_P,\epsilon_Q$ are large, it follows that $\epsilon_P (1-\epsilon_Q) + \epsilon_Q (1-\epsilon_P)$ is large, i.e., this algorithm for factoring $N$ has a large success probability.
So this is a reduction which shows that any efficient solution to this problem immediately yields an efficient algorithm for factoring. As a consequence, we should not expect any efficient solution to this problem (since we don't expect there to be any efficient algorithm for factoring). The reduction is tight, since I have shown in the comments that if you can factor $N$, then it is easy to solve this problem.
Technically, I only proved the result for algorithms that make just one call to the first black box (the one that generates a random value $[r]$). However, this proof technique can be extended to algorithms that make any feasible number of calls to the first black box, by looking at multivariate polynomials instead of univariate polynomials. These are basically the same techniques used to show that there is no generic algorithm for the discrete log (in generic/black-box groups) that runs faster than square-root time.
