Domain-Driven Design itself does not prescribe such patterns or guidelines. But it does prescribe that you design around your domain, and not around infrastructure details such as brokers, queues, etc.
That said; and supposing you are doing OOP, treating your domain objects as first class citizens will likely mean that you will fully decouple your domain from your infrastructure, and thus invite common patterns that are good at this, such as hexagonal architecture.
Even then, DDD does not prescribe a particular integration approach either; The fact that you ask about queues indicates that you are considering Asynchronous Integration. There is nothing wrong with that, but it always pays off to defer architecture decisions. Especially if you are "about to" discover this domain through DDD. Try to start simple, loosely-coupled but monolith-first, you might discover that you don't even need queues at all.
Having considered all of the above, in an asynchronous integration scenario with RabbitMQ, it is common to use a pub-sub pattern. All relevant events are published to one exchange without a specific consumer in mind. Consumers set up their own queues and bindings as they require, so there is no one formula that works:
- One queue per event type per consumer
- One queue per consumer with multiple bindings for event types or topic patterns
- Queues shared among consumer instances for load balancing
- ... and many combinations of these.