Just a few thoughts about the schematic you provided. I don't know the exact design criteria you used (or the designer used, if that wasn't you), but I can make some assumptions about it based on common example ideas I've seen on the web and in writings.
I'm guessing here that the designer (you?) used \$V_{C_q}\approx 9\:\textrm{V}\$, implying \$I_{C_q}\approx 4\:\textrm{mA}\$. This suggests \$V_{E_q}\approx 900\:\textrm{mV}\$ and \$V_{B_q}\approx 1.6\:\textrm{V}\$. Also, an expected unloaded gain of about \$\frac{2.2\:\textrm{k}\Omega}{220\:\Omega}\approx 10\$. Given the expected \$\pm\:5\:\textrm{V}\$ swing, this looks okay as \$V_{CE_{min}}\approx 3\:\textrm{V}\$ and this keeps the transistor well out of saturation. So that's good, too. (The high rail voltage makes this possible given your desired gain and the lack of a separate AC emitter gain setting leg.)
The questions I have with the design choices come with the biasing side of things. With \$I_{C_q}\approx 4\:\textrm{mA}\$ and with \$V_{CE_{min}}\approx 3\:\textrm{V}\$, I might estimate \$\beta_{min}\approx 100\$ for a typical small signal BJT. This means that I'd want to be sure I have \$I_{B_q}\ge 40\:\mu\textrm{A}\$. But a rough estimate of the available biasing current in your biasing pair says \$\frac{18\:\textrm{V}}{220\:\textrm{k}\Omega+27\:\textrm{k}\Omega}\approx 70\:\mu\textrm{A}\$. That's probably not enough for the amplifier design to work consistently over a wide variety of BJTs. Sure, there are some common BJTs that will deliver in the \$\beta=300-400\$ range here. Some I have in a box (super beta) will deliver \$\beta=1000\$, even. So the required \$I_{Q_q}\$ may be less than the estimate I gave and this may allow the circuit to still work reasonably well even with such a light biasing current. But if you want to make a design that works consistently, you should plan on a lowish \$\beta_{min}\$. Around the 100 value I mentioned earlier. Regardless, I'd stiffen up that biasing pair.
[All of the above thoughts are true, even if I'm somewhat wrong about \$V_{C_q}= 9\:\textrm{V}\$. Moving \$V_{C_q}\$ up or down a few volts won't change the estimated \$I_{C_q}\$ enough to change my difficulty with the weak biasing you are using.]
For example, assuming \$I_{B_q}\ge 40\:\mu\textrm{A}\$ it is typical to plan on about \$10\times\$ for the biasing pair, or about \$400\:\mu\textrm{A}\$. Given that figure and using the \$V_{B_q}\approx 1.6\:\textrm{V}\$ figure, I'd get \$R_2=\frac{1.6\:\textrm{V}}{400\:\mu\textrm{A}}= 4\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$. Which means I'd use \$R_2= 3.9\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$. This means now that my biasing current is recomputed to be about \$410\:\mu\textrm{A}\$. Now, I need \$R_1=\frac{18\:\textrm{V}-1.6\:\textrm{V}}{410\:\mu\textrm{A}-40\:\mu\textrm{A}}= 44\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$. So I'd use a standard value of perhaps \$R_1=39\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$ or \$R_1=47\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$. The actual choice here will move \$V_{C_q}\$ around a bit and since I don't want it to fall much below the value of \$9\:\textrm{V}\$, I'd rather use \$R_1=47\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$, pulling a little less on the BJT base. It's the closer value, too, which is nice.
So that's the design you should also try out. Use \$R_1=47\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$ and \$R_2=3.9\:\textrm{k}\Omega \$. See how that works for you.
Oh, some final notes. I'd expect to see a gain of less than 10 at the output. \$r_e=\frac{k T}{q I_{C_q}}\approx 6.5\:\Omega\$. This adds to your \$R_E=220\:\Omega\$ value and gives a gain of \$A_V\approx\frac{2.2\:\textrm{k}\Omega}{220\:\Omega+6.5\:\Omega} \approx 9.7\$. And that's still unloaded. Once you place a load on it, it will reduce further, of course.
Also, given your input swing being so much as compared to the biasing point of the BJT base (which is just another reason I'd redesign the whole thing and move the quiescent point of \$V_{E_q}\$ up higher), you can expect quite a swing on \$I_C\$. The low point will be about \$V_{B_{min}}=\frac{3.9\:\textrm{k}\Omega}{39\:\textrm{k}\Omega+3.9\:\textrm{k}\Omega}\cdot 18\:\textrm{V}-500\:\textrm{mV}\approx 900\:\textrm{mV}\$ and therefore \$V_{E_{min}}\approx 200\:\textrm{mV}\$, so that \$I_{C_{min}}\$ falls slightly below \$1\:\textrm{mA}\$. This provides \$r_e\approx 29\:\Omega\$ and the gain drop to about 8.8 or so. This gain variation means that the output will be slightly distorted and won't be as clean as you might want it (though perhaps that is just fine, too.)
To improve that circumstance, it is common to raise \$V_{B_q}\$ to a higher value. Given the large supply rail you have, there should be no problems here. However, this raises \$V_{E_q}\$ and that means a larger \$R_E\$ to keep \$I_{C_q}\$ the same, which then reduces the gain without changing the topology. The answer is to add an AC gain leg to the emitter. This allows you the freedom to set the DC value of \$V_{E_q}\$ in order to reduce gain variation caused by varying \$r_e\$ without sacrificing the final AC gain in the process. It also greatly improves temperature stability, as well.
