Dockerfile improvements

Nobody has claimed this yet.

### Describe the bug

Since the loopback scaffolding automatically generates a `Dockerfile`, I've noticed a lot of developers in our organisation assume that this Dockerfile is ready out-of-the-box for production deployments.

Is the generated `Dockerfile` meant for local developer use? In this case, I think it might be good to mention this somewhere (maybe in the Dockerfile itself) and that it needs some adjustments to be production ready.

Alternatively, I would suggest these changes:

1. The Dockerfile uses `npm install`, which is great for local development, but I think it should be [`npm ci`](https://docs.npmjs.com/cli/v8/commands/npm-ci) for deployments. `npm ci --only=production` would be even better, but that won't work without additional changes, because of my next point.
2. The built Dockerfile includes devDependencies. If I build it as-is (e.g. `docker build .`), the image size is 393MB because it includes all of the original TypeScript, the transpiled JavaScript, dependencies, and devDependencies. Changing `npm install` to `npm ci --only=production` won't work in a single-stage build because those devDependencies are needed to transpile the TypeScript. By using a multi-stage build, this allows only including the needed files, which reduces the image size to 277MB, and should have a positive impact on storage, deployment times, application startup times, etc.
3. The Dockerfile does the build at runtime, so every time the application is run, it calls `npm start`, which calls `prestart`, which calls `rebuild`, which calls `build` (and so on). The build should be done when the container is built, so when the container is run, all it has to do is run the code.

I'm not an expert, but here's a Dockerfile that uses a mutli-stage build to fix all of the above issues:

```Dockerfile
# Check out https://hub.docker.com/_/node to select a new base image
FROM docker.io/library/node:18-slim as builder

# Set to a non-root built-in user `node`
USER node

# Create app directory (with user `node`)
RUN mkdir -p /home/node/app

WORKDIR /home/node/app

# Install app dependencies
# A wildcard is used to ensure both package.json AND package-lock.json are copied
# where available (npm@5+)
COPY --chown=node package*.json ./

RUN npm ci

# Bundle app source code
COPY --chown=node . .

RUN npm run build

FROM docker.io/library/node:18-slim

USER node

RUN mkdir -p /home/node/app

WORKDIR /home/node/app

COPY --chown=node --from=builder /home/node/app/dist dist
COPY --chown=node --from=builder /home/node/app/package*.json ./

RUN npm ci --only=production

# Bind to all network interfaces so that it can be mapped to the host OS
ENV HOST=0.0.0.0 PORT=3000

EXPOSE ${PORT}
CMD [ "node", "." ]
```

### Logs

_No response_

### Additional information

_No response_

### Reproduction

1. Generate a new application
2. CD to the directory
4. Build the Dockerfile and observe the size
5. Change `npm install` to `npm ci --only=production` in Dockerfile
6. Build an image using the Dockerfile and observe that the build fails

Find the LoopBack scaffolding entry point or template that generates the Dockerfile, then reproduce the generated image build described in the issue. Review the proposed local-versus-production behavior and validate the resulting image size and startup path; done means the intended deployment guidance or Dockerfile changes are covered by the relevant scaffolding tests.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.